I don't think the
 
    -include-file *.as ./src
 
is kosher. The shell is presumably expanding the * before passing the
command line to compc to produce
 
    -include-file file1.as file2.as file3.as ./src
 
and this wouldn't be what -include-file expects.
 
- Gordon

________________________________

From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Paul Neyman
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 10:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Compiling with compc: can't direct the output
properly



That's the format for -include-file parameter:

-include-file <name> <path>

--- In [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>
, "Gordon Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What is the ./src right before -output doing there?
> 
> - Gordon
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:[email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>
] On
> Behalf Of Paul Neyman
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 3:34 PM
> To: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> 
> Subject: [flexcoders] Compiling with compc: can't direct the output
> properly
> 
> 
> 
> I am trying to compile an SWC file with compc.
> 
> Here's the command line I'm passing:
> 
> compc -source-path ./src -include-file *.as ./src
-output='FlexSDK.swc'
> 
> And here's what I get back:
> 
> Error: unable to export SWC FlexSDK.swc: c:\wdir\c8\sdk\flex\.\src
> (Access is denied)
> 
> No matter what value I set for the output parameter, compc takes in
> the 'base' folder and appends it to the current location.
> 
> I even tried to write an ant build.xml:
> 
> <property name="base" value="./src" />
> <property name="compiler" value="compc.exe" />
> 
> <target name="compile" description="Compile SWC.">
> <echo>Building ${swcFile}</echo>
> <exec executable="cmd" failonerror="true">
> <arg line="/c ${compiler} 
> -source-path ${base}
> -include-file * ${base}
> -output='${swcFile}'"/>
> </exec>
> </target>
> 
> But I get the same error.
> Any solution?
> 
> Thanks!
>



 

Reply via email to