ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <dona...@apache.org>
Subject Re: New build process???
Date Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:34:22 GMT
At 09:21  22/1/01 -0800, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
>I'm not an Ant committer, so I don't have a useful vote here, but Tomcat (and
>several other Jakarta subprojects) are facting the same basic issues, and it
>would be nice to see some commonality in how the subprojects organize their
>build processes.

+1000 ;)
One of the biggest complaints when I tried to push various apache java web
technologies on people was that there was no standard build process. 

>My personal preference is that the "dist" subdirectory would contain an exact
>image of the files you would package into a "binary distribution" -- such
as for

+0.9

For all the projects I develope I have both a dist-lite and a dist
directory. dist is a full binary image and the -lite version is the binary
image minus documentation. That way you can use dist-lite as your default
target and everything still runs reasonably well.

>Other common conventions/guidelines could be added to this, if considered
>desireable -- for example, if your subproject creates executable shell
scripts,
>then go in "dist/bin", library JAR files produced by the subproject (as
opposed
>to used in creating it) go into "dist/lib", and so on.  Such conventions
would
>make cross project dependencies much easier to deal with.

+1
I would also like to see some conventions in the base tree. For instance in
base tree you would have

README
LICENSE
build.[sh|bat]
build.xml
src/[x]/**     where x is a dimension either by form (java/sql/conf) or
content 
               (shared, core, optional)
tools/bin/*    all scripts used in *build* proces but not during deploy
(except  
               for build.[sh|bat])
tools/lib/*    libraries used during build but not deployed (ie stylebook/ant)

>I don't see any reason to impose any Jakarta-wide restrictions on the
internal
>contents of the "build" subdirectory, other than a convention that if your
>subproject utilizes such a thing, it should reside in a subdirectory called
>"build".

Right - the only issue is that some projects (velocity/turbin/jetspeed) use
build to denote build scripts atm.

>What do you think?

+1

I was going to wait till the tinderbox thingie becomes more solidified
which would allow a use case to be described and thus more likely to
convince people to use it ;) 

Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*


Mime
View raw message