Something else came up that ate up my evening, so I did not get a chance to look at this like I planned. I will work on this tonight; I want to resolve this and move forward with the release in some fashion. I'll see what I come up with and we can decide and move forward.
-Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Womack [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 4:55 PM > To: 'Log4J Developers List' > Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release log4j 1.2.12rc3 (was log4j 1.3 minimum JDK) > > I will see if I can play with this tonight. It would be nice if these > settings could be controlled from our build.properties file instead of > setting property values in the command line. > > -Mark > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Curt Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 4:07 PM > > To: Log4J Developers List > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release log4j 1.2.12rc3 (was log4j 1.3 minimum JDK) > > > > > > On Aug 16, 2005, at 4:33 PM, Mark Womack wrote: > > > > > > The javac tag supports an "executable" attribute that lets you > > > specify a > > > path to the javac to use. Between that and the other attributes, I > > > think we > > > will have enough control to do what we want? > > > > > I agree that switching to the jdk 1.2 compiler for v1.2.12 at this > > > point > > > will be a disruptive risk, but something we may want to consider > > > and deal > > > with. But for log4j v1.3 we should certainly look at it. > > > > Should be no need to modify the build file, the compiler can be > > controlled by the -Dbuild.compiler switch on the Ant command and > > appropriate setting of the PATH and/or JAVA_HOME. It would be > > undesirable to hard-code a particular compiler choice in the build file. > > > > Jikes seemed to be the simplest way to tweak your configuration, but > > using the JDK 1.2 or 1.1 compiler or building the whole thing on JDK > > 1.1 or 1.2 (requiring a rebuilt Ant and assembly of things like JAXP > > that are built into later JVM's) should also work. I was just > > looking for the minimum possible change to your configuration to > > avoid losing something like the JMSAppender due to a configuration > > change. > > > > When you do decide what one of the multiple options you use to , it > > would be good if you could tell us how you built it. > > > > Probably worthwhile looking at the recently filed: http:// > > issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36213. The issues raised > > appear also to affect 1.2.12rc3. > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
