Out of curiosity what was the old setup?
And out of further curiosity, why don't we (we of course means you ;) just build based on a set of namespaces? That solution does require either nant or make or whatever to parse a file to see if it is inside a proper namespace before compiling and including it. Unless the test classes need to be inside the same namespace as the actual code, but I doubt it is the case. Personally, all my unit-tests are in the Test namespace. I didn't check which namespace mono uses to put your unit-tests. Phil -----Original Message----- From: Miguel de Icaza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 8:11 PM To: Piers Haken Cc: Guenther Roith; Philippe Lavoie; mono-list Subject: RE: [Mono-list] Is nant being used by mono ? Hello, > you may have noticed, however, that the makefiles for the class libs no > longer depend on static lists of source files. the list of files to > compile is generated with 'nant-like' include/exclude rules. The Nant-like lists is one of the reasons we wanted to drop nant altogether ;-) This is cumbersome, because sometimes we would create a temporary file, in that directory and the classes in that directory would get pulled into the library, or would subtly break the build when removed. I liked the old setup a lot more. Miguel. _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
