commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mat Booth <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Codec 1.4 based on RC2
Date Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:37:25 GMT
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Jörg Schaible<> wrote:
> sebb wrote at Dienstag, 28. Juli 2009 09:40:
>> On 28/07/2009, Jörg Schaible <> wrote:
>>> sebb wrote at Montag, 27. Juli 2009 23:14:
>>>  > On 27/07/2009, Niall Pemberton <> wrote:
>>> [sinp]
>>>  >> I dont know the plugin, but looking at the code it looks like it
>>>  >>  generates the jar and extracts the manifest:
>>>  >>
>>>  >>
>>>  >>
>>>  >>  So it looks like either you would have to do something similar or
>>>  >>  just use Bnd to create the jar
>>>  >
>>>  > I was beginning to wonder if that would be necessary ... seems to me
>>>  > that this will be quite a lot of work for no direct gain to Commons.
>>>  >
>>>  > Let's wait for a patch ;-)
>>> Maybe we should start asking the other way round: Why do *we* want to
>>>  maintain an additional Ant build file? We build our artifacts with
>>>  Maven, vote on them and distribute exactly those in the end. I'd never
>>>  expect to get the exactly same jar using a different build system. If
>>>  somebody want an Ant build he can use the maven-ant-plugin
>>>  ( to create the
>>>  build.xml.
>>>  WDYT?
>> FIne by me - but does the Ant plugin generate the necessary bundle
>> commands to generate the OSGI headers?
> Don't think so. It will simply try to "convert" the standard operations. For
> some commons components the resulting Ant build file might not even work.
> However, it can be adjusted or we can help the Maven community to improve
> it. Nevertheless, I see no value to provide a build.xml on our own, it we
> cannot guarantee that it does not produce the same result. And I fear that
> is already the case for some of the last releases. Therefore I'd rather
> delete it and document the possibility to generate that file. We can still
> configure the plugin to generate a build.xml that is as close as possible
> to build at least the jar - but we have no responsibility for it anymore.
> - Jörg

Heh, turns out my request to make the ant build better will probably
get it abolished, though I don't blame you for wanting to maintain
only one buildsystem. I thought ant and maven would both be first
class citizens around here but that's obviously not the case so I
guess the Right solution is to build with maven. That's not
immediately possible, but I will speak to the Fedora maven maintainers
to see what we can do.

Thanks for your time, everyone.

Mat Booth

A: Because it destroys the order of the conversation.
Q: Why shouldn't you do it?
A: Posting your reply above the original message.
Q: What is top-posting?

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

View raw message