Hartmut Goebel <h.goe...@goebel-consult.de> writes: > Am 02.09.2016 um 13:48 schrieb Ricardo Wurmus: > > > > I found all of these need intervention for building, as there is no >> "install" target (maybe I missed something). Echo of the packages >> behaves a bit different (e.g. different directory names), while >> sharing some common patterns. I'll attach my WIP for your convenience. > > “ant-build-system” creates a “build.xml” with an install target when > “#:jar-name” is provided. This is useful in case there’s only a > “pom.xml” and the package provides a single jar. > > Yes, this is what you wrote earlier today. But most of these (four) > commons packages habe a build.xml, But they behave differently. Some > build into "target", some into "dist/", some put docs in "apidocs/" > others into "docs/api/". > > Or do you suggest to use a build.xml created be ant-build-system?
This depends on the package and the expected output (e.g. one jar file to be installed). The build.xml generated by the ant-build-system does not build docs because it’s supposed to work for most Java packages. We could change the ant-build-system such that a smarter “build.xml” would be generated, but I think if a project provides a “build.xml” we should be using it, unless it’s really defective or close to useless. Another option is to write procedures to parse the “build.xml” and add custom targets, but since I don’t know what to expect in the build files I cannot think of a general approach that would be useful here. ~~ Ricardo
