Peter, >On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:55, Paul Hammant wrote: > >>We will have gone from a position of an easy build of a big jar (that >>itself being an acceptance problem) to a difficult build of many small >>jars. I think the new MEME to be associated with Avalon would be "I >>can't build it, I have no idea what it is or how useful it is". >> > >Funny - I would have said the opposite. That used to be the old problem. >Given that I just tried to build ftpserver and it FAILED, then I tried >to build db and it FAILED, a few weeks ago I tried to build phoenix and it >passed but with CORRUPT jars, a week before that the same occured with >phoenix, and a week before that pheonix was also broken. > >So exactly how is it easier to have these corruptions and failures? > With respect dude, I am not defending the previous position....
>I am TIRED of having to fix build problems that arise because people are >using jakarta-avalon/tools and those stupid build.* scripts. Look at all the >ugly hacks in the build files that are present to get around the failure of >that. > Agree. >I have no problem putting some jars in CVS - especially ones of highly >"dynamic" projects. However things like xalan, xerces, ant, junit and so >forth should not be put in CVS because inevitably they will cause headaces >and incompatabiliteis - especially now that JDK1.4 includes xalan and crimson. > Agree. - Paul -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
