On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 19:29 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Kohei Yoshida <kohei.yosh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Well, if ant is used to build Java jar packages, then, I would prefer > > ant be used because ant's build script is much simpler than make's for > > Java packages. For Java, ant is pretty much the standard build > > system. > > The problem is 'ant' need to be treated as a 'Custom Build' and > parallelism cannot be managed properly. (iow the ant process would > have to be the equivalent of -j1).
Understood. But I still wouldn't re-write ant build script with make's. That would incur lots of manual labor & maintenance cost. What I like about ant is that you don't need to list every single java source file you need to compile, whereas in make you do (unless I'm missing something). That makes a huge difference and makes the ant build script very small regardless of the number of source files. The only exception is those ugly ant files generated by Netbeans. So, I consider ant to be a part of the Java source files to remove, but I wouldn't just remove ant while the rest of the Java sources are still there. With that said, if you already know this, and still want to give it a go, I won't stop you. You guys deal with the build system more than I do, so I'll leave it to your discretion. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
