Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Ant installation (and other) issues!

From: "Michael Ansley (UK)" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec-telecom-systems(dot)com>
To: "'pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org '" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Ant installation (and other) issues!
Date: 2001-10-23 15:14:38
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
Why is this such a big issue?  Shipping the Ant binary would be like
shipping the make binary, which seems silly to me.  However, I would far
prefer to use Ant to build the JDBC driver.  So, is it not possible to
simply maintain a, and a build.xml, and then people can specify
--with-java-ant or --with-java-make on the configure command line?  And if
you specify --with-java without specifying a build tool, then it uses make.
And the build.xml should be for the current production version of Ant,
unless otherwise agreed by the developers for some or other good reason.

At the end of the day, there are some versions of make which just won't
build Postgres, because of some or other proprietary stuff, or because they
are buggy, or whatever.  Same goes for Ant.  If you want to use Ant, you
either use the latest production release, or you're on your own.

What's the big deal?  I'm sure there is at least one person in each 'camp'
who is willing to maintain the or build.xml respectively.  Isn't


-----Original Message-----
From: Per-Olof Norén
To: Gunnar Rønning; Tom Lane
Cc: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Sent: 10-23-01 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Ant installation (and other) issues! 

Seems like the debate has flared again.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Gunnar Rønning" <gunnar(at)polygnosis(dot)com>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>; "Per-Olof Norén"
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Ant installation (and other) issues!

> Gunnar =?iso-8859-1?q?R=F8nning?= <gunnar(at)polygnosis(dot)com> writes:
> > But anyway this off topic, what need to have is a build process that
> > nicely and I think including the ant binaries(around 500k) would be
> > best solution here.
> 500k of binaries?  You just lost the argument.  That's not an
> amount of overhead to add to the Postgres distribution.

I don´t see why the size of ant will be a problem. Could you please
to me?

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged and/or copyright 
material of Intec Telecom Systems PLC (or its affiliated companies).  If you are not an 
intended or authorised recipient of this e-mail or have received it in error, please delete 
it immediately and notify the sender by e-mail.  In such a case, reading, reproducing, 
printing or further dissemination of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. 
Intec Telecom Systems PLC. does not represent or warrant that an attachment hereto is free 
from computer viruses or other defects. The opinions expressed in this e-mail and any 
attachments may be those of the author and are not necessarily those of Intec Telecom 
Systems PLC. 

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Jayesh K. ParayaliDate: 2001-10-23 16:39:57
Subject: Re: FW: Re: [PATCHES] Ant configuration
Previous:From: Mark LillywhiteDate: 2001-10-23 09:48:13
Subject: DatabaseMetadata patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group