As a user of the build system, I think we have too many build
strategies, and should not add another one unless it is absolutely
essential to do so. Of course I would prefer an IDE, but another round
of build system changes is far too high a price to pay.
Given that most is on gmake, I would much prefer to stick with gmake.
If we keep changing our collective mind about the build system we will
never have a consistent system, but will always have some modules on
each of several systems.
On 10/29/2019 10:25 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote:
Hello Damjan and all
I would like to re-discuss our current plan. Hoping to gain a common view.
Current state is mostly we use gmake, there are still some difficult to
migrate dmake projects. And we use Ant for java.
The plan is not to stop at the dmake -> gmake conversion but to move on
to scons, removing as much dependencies as we can. Right?
I would like to set the target to build everything to Ant, removing as
much dependencies we can.
My arguments are mostly that Ant is supported by most when not all IDEs
and I would really like to have an IDE as working environment, and my
hope is that it is easier maybe to integrate an Ant build environment
then a scons or gmake environment.
I think this would give us a better base then the plan above. So what
was the arguments against Ant again?
All the Best
Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
