On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Tim OBrien wrote:
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robert Leland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Henri, +1. I brought this up before and was told that checking JAR files > into CVS was verboten. If you are familiar with the process of building the > commons site, you'll recognize this as hot air - we're depending on JARs > checked into the CVS modules of other projects. Have gone ahead and done it. Minotaur has lots of nice disk-space for us now and velocity/jakarta-site2 have both upgraded their versions of the jars, leaving build.properties out of date and potentially unworkable if Commons xdocs don't work with the new dependencies. Much easier to just declare build.properties to be the particular jars I've placed in docs-lib/. [They do work with new code though, which is what I've placed in docs-lib]. Actually got to wonder if there's any point having build.properties.sample in this case. I'm not sure if the rest of build.properties does anything and these values could sit in build.properties itself [or in the build.xml]. > He's referring to the fact that one customizes a build.properties which > refers to jar files checked into the velocity project. Or, (and this was > added only recently), you can point to the same jars which are checked into > the jakarta-site2 module. 2001-01-15 :) Not that recently. > > >Is anyone against this? Is there some reason for the current > > >confusing setup? > > > > > As a half measure, please check the required JARs into CVS. From there we > should consider Maven or simply having the build.xml retrieve the JARs from > a URL. Ouch. The 1.7M Xerces jar is hurting my uplink :) Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
