ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Duncan Davidson" <james.david...@eng.sun.com>
Subject Re: Ant build.xml
Date Tue, 11 Apr 2000 01:26:32 GMT
> I respectfully disagree.  The last thing we need is for every project that
> is a building block to contain their own version of ant, xml parser, and
> tools.jar.  What a mess.  Ever few weeks there is a report on the cocoon
> mailing list of a problem that is due to somebody having an old xml parser
> with a backlevel set of org.w3c classes earlier in their classpath,
> breaking cocoon.

Just because I put forward that most of the time you shouldn't have to
bootstrap doesn't mean that I think that every project needs their own
ant.jar. Two different things.

> In general, I am totally -1 against checking in outputs from build
> processes.  The only exception I can conceive of are projects which are
top
> levels (i.e., not typically used as building blocks).

Right, but we shouldn't require everyone to build ant to build cocoon or
whatever.

> A much better model IMHO is the RedHat model.  Every six months or so a
> complete package is built where everything was built using the same
version
> of everything.  From this one image, you can install the binaries from the
> pieces you want and replace the others either with alternate binaries
> (RPMs) or by compiling them yourself from source.

What I'd like to see is just a distribution of ant that is installable.
Something where you install it like you'd install make -- as an external
thing, complete with command line "ant ____" commands.

.duncan


Mime
View raw message