ant-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pareti, Joseph" <>
Subject RE: what does ant really use?
Date Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:14:47 GMT
Yes I am aware that there are symlinks, so I followed them to the point that I am almost 100%
sure there was neither javac nor gcj on the system disk. So how can ant still compile? Does
it have a "bundled" gcj ?

-----Original Message-----
From: John5342 []
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 11:58 AM
To: Ant Users List
Subject: Re: what does ant really use?

If you changed the name of gcj and javac in /usr/bin they are not the actualy executables.
They are only links to the real ones which in fedora (and probably RH) located in /usr/share/jvm/<java
implementation>/bin/. In fedora (and again probably in RH) there is an "alternatives" application
which allows you to choose which installed version of java you are using rather than renaming
binaries. Should also warn you that although RH is supported longer than most and in general
rock stable the software is often quite old because i happen to know that more recent versions
of gcj support java 1.5. Hope this all helps you in the right direction.

2008/10/8 Pareti, Joseph <>

> As a disclaimer, I am a true ant (and java) novice. Having said that,
> I am confronted with a weird problem in a j2ee project which fails at
> run time with a jndi error. After several investigations, I am now
> almost convinced it has to do with the build process.
> I have jdk 1.5.0_02 installed on my system, x86/RHEL 3, kernel 2.4; I
> am also using ant 1.5.2_23
> My build log file shows, for each compile target the following message:
> [javac] Using gcj compiler
> Just for kicks, I then deleted gcj as well as javac (here I mean the
> javac compiler executable) from my disk i.e. I renamed both of them to
> something else, and ant still worked and still claimed it's using gcj,
> which leaves me totally confused.
> Perhaps one hint; at the top of the log file I see the comment
> "detected java version 1.4 in /usr".
> I know this is not what I want/need (it should be 1.5), so where does
> it come from?
> I then went ahead setting the following property in my build.xml:
> <property name="build.compiler" value="modern"/>
> but this was quickly discarded:
> "Override ignored for property build.compiler"
> which basically produced the same results as described above. I am
> running out of ideas here.
> Thanks for any insights.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message