ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Rousse <rou...@ccr.jussieu.fr>
Subject Re: [JPackage-devel] FW: jakarta ant 1.4.1/1.5 ant script
Date Tue, 07 May 2002 09:22:25 GMT
Ainsi parlait Lundi 6 Mai 2002 15:58, Nicolas Mailhot :
> > - rpmmode option
> > The name is badly chosen. Actually, behaviour has nothing to do with rpm,
> > but with the fact that this software depends of other ones being
> > installed in defined place, thus ant being part of a distribution. I'd
> > have used something as standalone instead.
>
> I agree on this, if nobody objects will change rpmmode to standalone in
> next version
>
> > Moreover, i still it is an error to have ant developpers taking care of
> > this. The day when another packaging project will use yet another java
> > repository and jar naming scheme, will them add another test case ?
>
> I *do* hope if someone else ever takes upon itslef this thankless task
> he will try to use the same name as us.
I know of at least two other similar project currently: Debian Java, and Real 
Time Enterprises (http://sourceforge.net/projects/rte). I dunno how they 
particular ant package works, but i think they are better qualified than 
anyone else for ensuring it.

Which was my main point, btw: default ant script should only cares about 
standalone installation, and let additional complexity to additional 
providers.

> > As we, the packager, as the ones who control what is installed where,
> > have to maitain it anyway, so why make official script always more
> > complex ? I'd prefer more collaborative work on functions used.
> >
> > - java_function inclusion
> > I 100% agree this project becomes used elsewhere, and so takes cares of
> > other *nixes environement. However, i think default ant script strategy
> > to test for its presence in one place (once again, ant developpers
> > doesn't control it), and duplicate code instead, is suboptimal. Why not
> > include it in ant distribution, and source it directly ? This way, it
> > would be always available, and both script (ant default, and jpackage
> > one) would easily share behaviour.
>
> Note that this is more or less the behaviour of my last script versions
>
> : if rpmmode, use our java-functions, else source the one that we'll try
>
> to bundle with ant, in the case none are found revert to minimalist
> behaviour with no complex JAVA_HOME or JAVACMD at all.
>
> This seems to go well with ant-dev, the remaining points being :
> * audit of our java-functions so they'll work on exotic shells
> * agree on some file layout for java-functions to bundle with ant.
I think it should comes into ANT_HOME/bin, so ant script would just have to
source it, and it would always be present.

> Right now I don't use every parts of java-functions, I think we can
> start safely bundling the whole thing and using the non-controversial
> parts. And then decide if other parts of java-functions should be
> splitted in jpackage-only scripts, be used by everyone including
> ant-dev, or be dropped altogether.
>
> I hope we'll find more extensive merger is possible. In fact, I've sold
> set_jvm and set_javacmd to ant-dev, as the main author of the rest you
> might want to convince them of the usefulness of everything alse.
I don't intend to convince other they needs the additional functionalities we 
use, but i think we have to provide all original functionalities.
-- 
Guillaume Rousse <rousse@ccr.jussieu.fr>
GPG key http://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/~rousse/gpgkey.html

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message