| From: | Peter Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Kreen <marko(at)l-t(dot)ee>, Mike Cannon-Brookes <mcannon(at)internet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Compiling |
| Date: | 2001-03-29 08:50:04 |
| Message-ID: | 5.0.2.1.0.20010329094803.01f5a5f0@mail.retep.org.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
At 13:04 27/03/01 +0200, Marko Kreen wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 07:54:15AM +1000, Mike Cannon-Brookes wrote:
> > Well Peter, I must say many would disagree with you there ;)
>
>* NSHO about ant deleted *
>
> > 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.
>
>Peter E, Peter M: how about build.xml.in, where the needed
>substitutions are done in configure end-phase? I can prepare
>patch if this is acceptable.
For me that would be a good idea (remember there are three build.xml files)
- it's just that I don't know enough about autoconf to do it myself :-)
The main one for a build.xml.in would be the jdbc one, but ideally the one
in the root would be the one ant should call.
PeterM
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Mount | 2001-03-29 08:52:05 | Re: [JDBC] Possible large object bug? |
| Previous Message | Peter Mount | 2001-03-29 08:47:02 | RE: Compiling |