On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 09:17:44PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > More powerful than GNU make? That's difficult to believe... but we don't > use make as make, we basically call a shell script.
Well, it is certainly easier to do more complex stuff with Ant than with make, obviously you could probably do whatever you want with make in-theory, but doing complex stuff in-practice is much easier with Ant in my experience. > > Some advice though, I have had little luck with installing either > > Ant's .deb or .rpm packages, I suggest Linux users > > download the binary tarball, put it somewhere like /opt/ant, and add > > "/opt/ant/bin" to your $PATH. Note that Ant requires Java v1.1 or > > later. > Ewwwww. The debian package seems to work. Why not make the makefile call > ant? This seems like unnecessary complexity, anyway. Huh? What is unnecessary complexity? As for wrapping Ant in the Makefile, what is easier about typing "make" than typing "ant"? I don't see the point in pretending that we are using make when we aren't. Obviously if someone wants to keep the Makefile up-to-date they are welcome to do-so, but I am not going to maintain both the Makefile and build.xml. Ian. -- Ian Clarke ian at freenetproject.org Founder & Coordinator, The Freenet Project http://freenetproject.org/ Chief Technology Officer, Uprizer Inc. http://www.uprizer.com/ Personal Homepage http://locut.us/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20020829/6c841744/attachment.pgp>
