Well Peter, I must say many would disagree with you there ;)

I don't want to get into an ant vs make argument, but my main points are:

1) ant files are quickly becoming a standard for compiling almost all open
source java projects
2) ant files are BUILT for java projects
3) currently we seem to have a build process that is 99% Ant and 1% make
(for 4 substitutions). It seems unnecessarily complex to add make when we
can remove it completely and not lose any functionality.

On a related note, why does the JDBC driver need to track versions with the
DB code? This seems pretty silly because it arbitrarily changes version
without regard to what's changed in the JDBC driver. Why not split it off to
have it's own versioning scheme? (This would get rid of any dependency on
make as a nice consequence)


> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter Eisentraut
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 3:12 AM
> To: Mike Cannon-Brookes
> Cc: Peter Mount; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Compiling
> Mike Cannon-Brookes writes:
> > Why do we need make?
> For consistency and to have a more powerful language.
> --
> Peter Eisentraut      [EMAIL PROTECTED]       http://yi.org/peter-e/
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to