Am Freitag, 23. April 2004 10:33 schrieb Thomas: > On Thursday 22 April 2004 23:44, S. Meslin-Weber wrote: > > Hi Thomas, Tom, > > > > I personally do use eclipse, both with just project files and ant > > scripts. I have found that both have problems. > > As one collegue does use Eclipse (on Windows even) I write most ant > files in such a way that they do work. > At least for us... > > > I don't believe that Tom would suggest using these project files as > > the sole means of building GNU Classpath, only as a means to start > > people off using Eclipse for development. One of the complaints > > commonly voiced by those wishing to join any OSS development > > project is the relatively high setup cost; this would make entry > > easier. > > I noticed that; but the point is more towards maintainance; someone > needs to maintain the file. This in itself is not too much of a > problem, but if you account for the fact that we need a couple of > other build-systems to reach the goal of lowering setup cost, the > one-base-covers-all aprouch of an ant build file is a lot cheaper in > the long run. > There is nothing worse then a badly maintained build file; even not > having one in the first place. > > I never build classpath before; the challenge to get it compiling > delayed it somewhat. If someone can build an ant file that works > (even just in concept) then I'm certainly willing to look at fixing > any portability problems.
I'm not sure its possible at all to build whole Classpath with ant. Does ant handle building native libraries ? automake/autoconf/libtool does all we need in a portable manner. I dont understand why you bitch it. Michael _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
