-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23-Oct-2001 Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Gunnar Rønning writes:
>> | * In numerous attempts I have failed to convince Ant to place the built
>> | files in a tree different from the source tree. This really makes it a
>> | pain to build for multiple
> Gunnar R?nning writes:
>
> > Seriously would installing GNU Make be enough, or would you need to install
> > Cygwin and other packages as well ?
>
> GNU make runs natively on Windows.
We do allow ODBC to be built natively on MS Windows. Does that require
gmake or can it use native MSWin buil
* Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > Seriously would installing GNU Make be enough, or would you need to install
| > Cygwin and other packages as well ?
|
| GNU make runs natively on Windows.
I know and I've used GNU Make when working with Windows, but that taught
me that you ofte
Ned Wolpert writes:
> Actuall, it does.
peter ~$ ant -version
Ant version 1.3 compiled on March 22 2001
peter ~$ echo $?
0
peter ~$ ant
Buildfile: build.xml does not exist!
Build failed
peter ~$ echo $?
0
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
--
Gunnar Rønning writes:
> Seriously would installing GNU Make be enough, or would you need to install
> Cygwin and other packages as well ?
GNU make runs natively on Windows.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
---(end of broadca
Gunnar Rønning writes:
> | * In numerous attempts I have failed to convince Ant to place the built
> | files in a tree different from the source tree. This really makes it a
> | pain to build for multiple architectures (in Java, architecture =
> | different jdk).
>
> destdir="${build}"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm using ant 1.4.1
Also, try using it with a valid build.xml file and see how that works when the
build fails or succedes
On 23-Oct-2001 Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Ned Wolpert writes:
>
>> Actuall, it does.
>
> peter ~$ ant -version
> Ant versio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 20-Oct-2001 Gunnar Rønning wrote:
>| * Ant doesn't provide an exit status; you have to watch the build to see
>| if it works. This is unacceptable.
>
> Hmm. Anybody with a solution here ?
Actuall, it does.
Example:
[wolpert@wolpert configTest
* "Dave Cramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|
| There seems to be enough interested parties to support both build tools.
| For the folks that want a Makefile, they can support it. If someone
| wants to support the build.xml file, then we should encourage it. I
| suspect that one of them will bec
Dave Cramer writes:
> The one issue I have with a non ant based build system is that it
> makes it difficult to build the driver on a windows machine.
That is a valid concern that we're going to have to think about before
we move to another method.
> What problems does ant present?
* Ant ne
* Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > compile the JDBC driver via ant if Java and ant are installed. (Or, rather, I
| > should be able to)
|
| You can also install GNU make on Windows.
This is how we used to build or apps on Windows before Ant, but we portability
issues with respe
* Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| * Ant needs to be installed. Of course this is not that much of a
| problem because you can simply install it. However, in automated build
| environments this might not be so easy, so people are just going to opt to
| leave out the JDBC driver.
Ned Wolpert writes:
> 3) Java is system independant, and the JDBC driver is a client piece. I should
> be able to compile the JDBC driver outside of PostgreSQL server if I wanted to,
> right? Example, I can't compile PostgreSQL on windozes 95. But I could
> compile the JDBC driver via ant if J
Dave Cramer writes:
> The one issue I have with a non ant based build system is that it makes
> it difficult to build the driver on a windows machine.
That is a valid concern that we're going to have to think about
before we move to another method.
> What problems does ant present?
* Ant needs
* Ned Wolpert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > Specifically, if we can include the ANT libraries in our CVS then my
| > objection to ANT (requiring users to trackdown and download ANT) goes
| > away, and I would then suggest we continue to use ANT for the other
| > reasons you mention.
|
| Wor
* Ned Wolpert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Win. They can just download it from a web site or we could ship the
| > jdbc JAR ourselves.
|
| True. I was really looking at it from those who wanted to build the jar from
| source. If we make the jarfile available from the website, that's good for
> I guess I can make an argument either way. The real way to answer this is to
> ask if one cares if you can build the JDBC driver on window's only platform
> without cygwin installed.
>
> -If the answer is no, that one wouldn't build the JDBC driver without building
>the rest of postgre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19-Oct-2001 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> One significant issue here is that unlike our other binaries, the JAR
> files run on any platform so they don't really need to compile in MS
> Win. They can just download it from a web site or we could ship the
I meant to send this to the group...
-FW: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>-
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:45:43 -0700 (MST)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Ned Wolpert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Barry Lind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [JDBC] [PATCHES] Ant configuration
-BEGIN
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19-Oct-2001 Barry Lind wrote:
> Did you send this just to me or the entire list. It appears that you
> sent it just to me. I think the good points you make here should be
> seen by everyone. Can you send it to the pgsql-jdbc list?
Whoops. Ye
OK, TODO item removed.
> * Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | I think I can safely at to TODO:
> |
> | JDBC
> | o Move from Ant to Make builds
>
> I don't think there is consesus over at the JDBC list yet. We need to get
> all the pros/cons for both solutions on the
* Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| I think I can safely at to TODO:
|
| JDBC
| o Move from Ant to Make builds
I don't think there is consesus over at the JDBC list yet. We need to get
all the pros/cons for both solutions on the table first. Make is not
neccesarily better
* "Dave Cramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| The one issue I have with a non ant based build system is that it makes
| it difficult to build the driver on a windows machine.
I think is a valid concern, since a lot of clients presumably will be running
on other architectures.
Maybe a twofold
> > * In Ant the build file will be much less complex
> > than a Makefile with same functionality. And same
> > time in Ant it is much easier to check local
> > Java internal setup.
>
> I agree that this is true, but I think a much better job can be done to
> minimize the added complexity
> Barry Lind writes:
>
> > I don't like this patch. If anything I think we should remove the
> > dependency on ANT, not remove the dependency on make.
>
> The use of Ant originally seemed attractive because it would solve the
> detection of the jdk version, the portable invocation of the compil
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Peter Eisentraut
Sent: October 18, 2001 5:04 PM
To: Barry Lind
Cc: Marko Kreen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JDBC] [PATCHES] Ant configuration
Barry Lind writes:
> I don't like this patch. If anything I think we should remove the
> de
Marko,
>
> But it seems to me that Ant has a positive side too:
I agree that there are positive reasons to use Ant (that is why it was
done in the first place). It is just that in retrospect, I don't
believe the pluses outweigh the minuses.
>
> * People with Java background probably know
* Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| The use of Ant originally seemed attractive because it would solve the
| detection of the jdk version, the portable invocation of the compiler, and
| the dependency generation. However, I must currently consider this
| experiment a failure, becaus
On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 07:37:27PM -0700, Barry Lind wrote:
>
> I am one of the jdbc maintainers. That is why I posted this to the list
> as I did. I wanted to see if there was concensus on this issue one way
> or the other. In looking at your patch, I don't have any problems with
> it tech
Barry Lind writes:
> I don't like this patch. If anything I think we should remove the
> dependency on ANT, not remove the dependency on make.
The use of Ant originally seemed attractive because it would solve the
detection of the jdk version, the portable invocation of the compiler, and
the de
Marko,
I am one of the jdbc maintainers. That is why I posted this to the list
as I did. I wanted to see if there was concensus on this issue one way
or the other. In looking at your patch, I don't have any problems with
it technically, but I would hate to have it applied, only to remove th
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Cramer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 03:17
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JDBC] [PATCHES] Ant configuration
>
>
> Given that ant is (or is becoming) the defacto standard for building
>
17, 2001 4:23 PM
To: Marko Kreen
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JDBC] [PATCHES] Ant configuration
I don't like this patch. If anything I think we should remove the
dependency on ANT, not remove the dependency on make.
By requiring ANT, we provide yet another hurdl
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 01:23:13PM -0700, Barry Lind wrote:
> > I don't like this patch. If anything I think we should remove the
> > dependency on ANT, not remove the dependency on make.
> >
> > By requiring ANT, we provide yet another hurdle for someone wanting to
> > use JDBC with postgre
On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 01:23:13PM -0700, Barry Lind wrote:
> I don't like this patch. If anything I think we should remove the
> dependency on ANT, not remove the dependency on make.
>
> By requiring ANT, we provide yet another hurdle for someone wanting to
> use JDBC with postgres. I would
I don't like this patch. If anything I think we should remove the
dependency on ANT, not remove the dependency on make.
By requiring ANT, we provide yet another hurdle for someone wanting to
use JDBC with postgres. I would prefer that the build environment be
the same for the database as for
36 matches
Mail list logo
