Hash: SHA1

On 22-Oct-2001 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> A more important point is that we are not a java-only codebase.  If we
> were, I could see a stronger argument for Ant.  As it is now, we have to
> weigh using a Java-standard Ant vs. a PostgreSQL/C-standard makefile
> solution.

Yes, which goes back to my original question.  Would someone want to build the
JDBC driver without building the rest of postgresql?  If this is the case, then
we need to make sure that we provide the tools needed build the JDBC driver in
this type of environment.  If this is not the case, then it doesn't/shouldn't
matter, since the build is directly linked to postgresql.

Let me ask people this question: Do we support building of the JDBC driver
externally to building postgresql?  Or, do we 'ship' or otherwise make available
the various JDBC driver in pre-build jar/binaries?  

Up to this point, people have basically been expected to get the latest JDBC
driver from CVS and re-build it.  If this is expected to continue, I recomend
making the JDBC driver easy to build outside of the postgresql project. 
However, if the releases will start to contain all the fixes from 7.2 and
beyond, then it doesn't matter to non-postgresql developers as much.  (It may
still matter, but its less of a big deal.)

(Personally, I love Ant as a development tool.  But the quality of Ant isn't
the issue here, its ease of development.  Multiple build-tools can create
confusion. If 'from now on', we don't expect individuals to build the JDBC
driver on their own, but use binaries, than simplfying the build procedure by
only using make should be fine.)


D08C2F45:  28E7 56CB 58AC C622 5A51  3C42 8B2B 2739 D08C 2F45 
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org


---------------------------(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

Reply via email to