Re: java 1.1 on linux

2003-03-20 Thread peter reilly
. humble pie eating ... The problem I encounted was trying to run the ant-contrib unit tests. The problem was most likely due to user error. I have now compiled ant-contrib against ant-1.5 using java1.1 and with some hacks it compiles, and the tests run (and fail - most likely due to anot

Re: java 1.1 on linux

2003-03-20 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1.5.1 and 1.5: java.lang.ClassFormatError: Bad major version number I do not get this on an admittedly simple build file using Blackdown's 1.1.8. I.e. Ant 1.5.1 from the binary tar.gz version seems to work with JDK 1.1 for me. >

Re: java 1.1 on linux

2003-03-19 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is less clear to me is whether 1.5 branch should be the last > 1.1 codebase or whether it should be 1.6. As you'll see shortly (when I cast my vote), we are pretty close to consensus here 8-) > I'd like to settle this last asp

Re: java 1.1 on linux

2003-03-18 Thread Steve Loughran
- Original Message - From: "Conor MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ant Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 14:26 Subject: Re: java 1.1 on linux > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:17 am, Costin Manolache wrote: > > > >

Re: java 1.1 on linux

2003-03-18 Thread Costin Manolache
Conor MacNeill wrote: > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:17 am, Costin Manolache wrote: >> >> Ok - last week we had a proposal, discussions on ant-user and ant-dev, >> and apparently an almost general consensus. >> >> What's next ? Should we wait a bit more before making it official by a >> [VOTE], or just

Re: java 1.1 on linux

2003-03-18 Thread Conor MacNeill
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:17 am, Costin Manolache wrote: > > Ok - last week we had a proposal, discussions on ant-user and ant-dev, and > apparently an almost general consensus. > > What's next ? Should we wait a bit more before making it official by a > [VOTE], or just forget the whole thing ? > I w

Re: java 1.1 on linux

2003-03-18 Thread Costin Manolache
Steve Loughran wrote: >> If this turns out to not work with JDK 1.1, it is another case for >> those of us proposing to leave JDK 1.1 support behind. This meant our >> binaries don't work with JDK 1.1 and nobody has complained so far 8-) >> > > It's a very good metric. Like how the memory setti

Re: java 1.1 on linux

2003-03-18 Thread Steve Loughran
Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1.5.1 and 1.5: java.lang.ClassFormatError: Bad major version number I thought Magesh had carefully compiled everything with target=1.1 and so on. If this turns out to not work with JDK 1.1, it is another case for

Re: java 1.1 on linux

2003-03-18 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1.5.2: > ant.taskdefs.Zip.grabResources() > This uses Vector.add instead of Vector.addElement(). > (The same is true for cvs HEAD). Will be fixed ASAP. > 1.5.1 and 1.5: java.lang.ClassFormatError: Bad major version numbe

Re: java 1.1 on linux

2003-03-18 Thread peter reilly
18 Mar 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Has anyone used java 1.1 on linux with ant? > > Yes (Blackdown's 1.1.8_v3 on RedHat 7.x). I haven't encountered any > unusual problems, even most my testcases pass (but I have

Re: java 1.1 on linux

2003-03-18 Thread Stefan Bodewig
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Has anyone used java 1.1 on linux with ant? Yes (Blackdown's 1.1.8_v3 on RedHat 7.x). I haven't encountered any unusual problems, even most my testcases pass (but I have compiled Ant myself). Stefan

java 1.1 on linux

2003-03-18 Thread peter reilly
Has anyone used java 1.1 on linux with ant? I have just tried ibm 1.1.8 with ant 1.4.1 and ant 1.5.2, ant -version. ant -version hangs on my machine (patched redhat 8.0) with 100% cpu utilialization. Peter.