commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glenn Nielsen <>
Subject Re: [docs] Crappy build system
Date Tue, 12 Aug 2003 02:58:45 GMT
Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Tim OBrien wrote:
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Robert Leland []
>>Henri, +1.  I brought this up before and was told that checking JAR files
>>into CVS was verboten.  If you are familiar with the process of building the
>>commons site, you'll recognize this as hot air - we're depending on JARs
>>checked into the CVS modules of other projects.
> Have gone ahead and done it. Minotaur has lots of nice disk-space for us
> now and velocity/jakarta-site2 have both upgraded their versions of the
> jars, leaving out of date and potentially unworkable if
> Commons xdocs don't work with the new dependencies. Much easier to just
> declare to be the particular jars I've placed in
> docs-lib/. [They do work with new code though, which is what I've placed
> in docs-lib].
> Actually got to wonder if there's any point having
> in this case. I'm not sure if the rest of does anything
> and these values could sit in itself [or in the
> build.xml].
>>He's referring to the fact that one customizes a which
>>refers to jar files checked into the velocity project.  Or, (and this was
>>added only recently), you can point to the same jars which are checked into
>>the jakarta-site2 module.
> 2001-01-15 :) Not that recently.
>>>>Is anyone against this? Is there some reason for the current
>>>>confusing setup?
>>As a half measure, please check the required JARs into CVS.  From there we
>>should consider Maven or simply having the build.xml retrieve the JARs from
>>a URL.
> Ouch. The 1.7M Xerces jar is hurting my uplink :)

Yeah, and that is one of many reasons not to put jars into CVS.

View raw message