I have fixed this just before my Christmas break. Basically anything that can be built on the machine doing the building would be included in ant.jar even if it was in the optional part of the source tree.
In the particular case of ejbjar, the task only requires JDK 1.2+ Whilst it doesn't cause any problems, as you noted, since the classes are the same, I think it is important to have ant.jar just having the core ant classes and not the optional bits. Conor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nico Seessle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 1:01 AM Subject: Re: EjbJar.class in both ant.jar and optional.jar ----- Original Message ----- From: Jason Rosenberg To: ant-user@jakarta.apache.org ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 7:29 AM Subject: EjbJar.class in both ant.jar and optional.jar Any ideas why EjbJar.class appears in both the ant.jar and the optional.jar, for the Ant1.2 distribution? I can't tell if the files are the same. They have different dates and different compressed sizes, although they do have the same de-compressed size. Based on the normal ordering in the classpath, with ant.jar appearing before optional.jar, the one in ant.jar will be the one instantiated, and this is the one with an older timestamp. Does anyone care? Is this an issue of any import? jason Looks like a problem with the buildfile used, but should not be a problem since both classes should be the same.There are some other tasks (classes) included in both files, for example Cab.class, javacc/*.class, ... Nico
