On 7 July 2013 11:02, Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/07/13 00:57, sebb wrote: >> >> On 6 July 2013 20:15, Robert Burrell Donkin > > > <snip> > > >>> What would a binary distribution give beyond a runnable jar...? >> >> >> In Commons binary archives contain the compiled jar(s), plus Javadoc >> (unpacked), plus source examples (if any). > > > :-) > > >> The Javadoc may not be so useful here, as RAT is not normally used as a >> library. >> >>> Opinions...? Ideas...? >> >> >> Using RAT from Maven is very easy, because the jars are pushed to Maven >> Central. > > > +1 > > >> However, I did find it a bit awkard picking out the correct jars to >> run with Ant. > > > <nod> > > >> Maybe the binary archive could contain directories for cli and Ant use. >> Or maybe just create combined jars for CLI and ANT use, and add some >> basic installation instructions. >> That would be 3 or 4 files; should be easy to use. > > > Yes, I think it should be easy enough to create a single jar suitable for > both CLI and Ant usage > > And yes, an improved README sounds good > > Perhaps more elegant to factor out clearly named modules for CLI and > assembly > > I also favour removing/relocating the Python recursion script
What does it do? It does not seem to have any documentation apart from the AL header. > >> There's no point including source or javadoc jars in the binary archive. > > > +1 > > Robert
