[GitHub] ant issue #53: Optional libraries for Ant 1.10
Github user twogee commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/ant/pull/53 IMHO, the whole point with `-Ddest` in `fetch.xml` is being able to complement `$ANT_HOME/lib` in Ant distribution. Otherwise, we may just use Ivy and put the dependencies (except NetREXX) into `ivy.xml` Any problems with using 2.2 for 1.9.x? --- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
[GitHub] ant issue #53: Optional libraries for Ant 1.10
Github user bodewig commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/ant/pull/53 Ahh, there is the misunderstanding. `fetch.xml` is only there for Ant development, not for Ant users at all. It is there to be used by people who want to build and test Ant. Users are expected to pick their dependencies as they need them. I'm not sure whether there are breaking changes between Commons Net 1.x and 3.x but if Ant is compiled against 3.x chances are it won't work against 1.x anymore, which would break the builds of users who depend on 1.x (and never cared about `fetch.xml` at all as they managed their dependencies themselves). --- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
[GitHub] ant issue #53: Optional libraries for Ant 1.10
Github user twogee commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/ant/pull/53 I assumed that the intention of fetch.xml is to provide something usable in runtime rather than at compile time. Nevertheless, I'd rather leave JRuby as it is, since the newer versions have a lot of dependencies. WRT Commons Net, what kind of changes may be troublesome? The change log states that 3 is binary compatible with 2 (some extraneous exceptions were removed). While we're at that, perhaps 1.9.x branch should use 2.2 (the official Java 5 release)? --- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
