Is the build environment really enough of a failure that we need to spend time on redoing it again?
Now if people want to work on that, I'm fine... we are all volunteers and work on stuff that interests us, but certainly, if people are *looking* for things to do, improving the actual code itself might be more worthwhile that rejiggering the build setup. > On Oct 30, 2019, at 1:25 AM, Peter Kovacs <peter.kov...@posteo.de> 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
