ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: [patch] - adding support for new features in commons-net 1.4.0 and performance improvement
Date Wed, 11 May 2005 12:50:25 GMT
On Wed, 11 May 2005, Steve Cohen <> wrote:

> I recently spent some time looking over  Have you guys
> seen this operation?

More than that.  We modified the Ant wrapper script to suit their
needs, so that they could stop distributing their version, for
example.  We've had some fruitful collaboration in the past.

I used to be subscribed to their dev list but had to cut down on
activities, so I dropped out of it.

> They don't like builds that depend on downloading stuff from the
> internet. Etc.  They hate circular dependencies.

Like me ;-)

> They're somewhat annoyed with Ant.  It's hard to talk to them.

I've not seen that, if so, something must have changed over the past
six months.  Anything special?

> In that world, they have a heck of a time building Ant from source
> since Ant (its optional tasks, anyway) depend on things like
> commons-net, which depend on Ant to build.  Chicken-egg again.

Not really.  They have separate RPMs for Ant and for ant with optional
tasks.  You only need the Ant RPM to build commons-net, and you need
Ant and commons-net to build the ant-apache-commons-net RPM.

> It seems to me that Ant is really at least two beasts:
> 1. a tool for running strictly java compiles and packaging into
> jars, wars, etc.

But everybody will have a different opinion what makes up this core.
<copy>?  You bet.  <chmod>?  For those RPM builders probably yes.
<war>?  _I_ don't think so.

> (this may or may not equate exactly to Ant's core vs. optional tasks
> - e.g. why is cvs core, but other vcs optional?)

historical reasons.  <cvs> was there before any optional task came
along.  I guess <script> was ther first one labeled optional.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message