gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: [nant-dev] NAnt and Gump -- getting closer...
Date Tue, 07 Sep 2004 15:33:40 GMT
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Adam R. B. Jack <> wrote:

> I think the answer is 'who decides what is the right approach', and
> I feel it is the NAnt team.

Yes, I agree.  We may need to explain in more detail what we want to
do and why we want to do that with Gump, but we need the expertize of
the NAnt folks to achieve that.

> I'd like to have the nant.xml metadata describe a bootstrap-nant
> project (maybe we call it mini-nant) that calls the script (that
> uses mini-NAnt to build NAnt.exe, wherever that is) and then we use
> that to build the next projects.

The script would need to know which framework you intend to use.  For
the Bourne shell script this simply means something like

mono bin/NAnt.exe

(ignoring Rotor and DotGNU for now) but the Windows batch file is a
different beast.

> If there really is no purpose for a script I could add an <exe
> element to Gump, but that worries me (only a little).

Again, you'd need to handle it differently when running Mono (you
don't invoke the executable directly).

> As for the GAC, and the DEVPATH environment variable, we don't have
> a perfect answer yet -- do we?

No, I don't think we have.  Since we control the machine running Gump
we can ensure that the GAC is more or less empty.  After that we may
get away with the "dump everything into a single directory" strategy.

> Clayton was wondering if we could use <References inside NAnt, and
> Gump write a pre-defined include file [it does something similar
> when it run Maven]. Does this idea have legs? Will it work for
> compiles and tests?

I don't think it would work for tests.  Can you specify the path to
nunit.core.dll at runtime for NAnt's <nunit> task - or maybe before
runtime, but to a value that may be different every day?

> As for <output -- it exists (as do <artifact and <jar) and ought
> work.  Artifact and Jar are simply aliases (right now) with no extra
> meaning. What types were you thinking of Stefan? type="library"
> and|or "executable" or something?


> As for language="csharp", if there truly is no significant
> difference between the various languages, I am more than game to do
> platform="dotnet|java".

I think this would be the correct approach.

> BTW: Ought we attempt to contribute metadata for the mini-nant up to
> nant projects (including log4net, etc.) and see if we can get that
> working from within Gump? I think that makes a good first goal.

I don't understand that, sorry.  Are you asking whether we should try
log4net first once we manage to use NAnt from within Gump?  Yes, it
looks like a good candidate.  As would NUnit.


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

View raw message