Aight, its out... give it a whirl and let me know if you run into
anything.
--jason
On Aug 22, 2006, at 6:26 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> Sounds good...thanks for taking this approach.
>
> Jason Dillon wrote:
>> I mentioned before, that if we use antrun here, that it will cause
>> other
>> antrun executions to fail since plugins are only initialized once,
>> and
>> some plugins need to add some additional dependencies.
>>
>> Its also much more difficult to support executions of individual
>> steps
>> using antrun.
>>
>> Best bet is to use something external... before it was /bin/
sh... and
>> now its gonna be Ant. I think that is better that /bin/sh and
batch.
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Aug 22, 2006, at 6:16 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> Why not use the ant-run plugin for maven instead of a build.xml?
>>>
>>> http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-antrun-plugin/
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>> I've whipped up an equivalent bootstrap.xml, testing it now...
>>>>
>>>> if it works as expected I will commit it, and a bootstrap and
>>>> bootstrap.bat that will invoke the build.
>>>>
>>>> Then, everyone needs to have Ant 1.6.5 installed (and ant
>>>> available on
>>>> the PATH) and Cygwin is no longer required.
>>>>
>>>> --jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 22, 2006, at 3:14 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/22/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>> I meant to just use Ant... if we end up using antrun from the
>>>>>>> bootstrap it will end up causing other antrun's to fail
later on
>>>>>>> since some of them need additional dependencies... which
>>>>>>> won't work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, didn't think about it. Are you really suggesting to use
>>>>>> Ant beside
>>>>>> Maven? It's getting too complicated to just get started. When
>>>>>> do you
>>>>>> think bootstrap will go away? Is it worth to talk about it any
>>>>>> more?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacek
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope this is not taken negatively...as it is not meant that
>>>>> way...
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is worth talking about, especially when we think
>>>>> bootstrap
>>>>> will go away. I respect Jason's disdain for Windows, but it
>>>>> also is
>>>>> the
>>>>> most used and most popular OS...which means it probably
>>>>> represents a
>>>>> large base of our community. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO, if we are to continue with the bootstrap, then I think
it is
>>>>> reasonable to support both *nix and Windows. No...I am not
>>>>> volunteering
>>>>> as I have other things on my plate, but I think if Mark D.
>>>>> wants to
>>>>> take
>>>>> on supporting the Windows side, I cannot find a negative in
this.
>>>>> What I
>>>>> do not think is reasonable is forcing any user to have to
install
>>>>> Cygwin
>>>>> (even though I love it) to build G on Windows. Cygwin is a
fairly
>>>>> large
>>>>> install and I have been at companies where one is forbidden to
>>>>> have it
>>>>> on corporate machines.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, my point is, if the bootstrap is short lived, then
>>>>> disregard my
>>>>> opinion ;-) But if it's gonna be with us for a while, lets
>>>>> allow the
>>>>> Windows bat version if Mark is willing to support it...or find
>>>>> something
>>>>> (like ant?) that will make it work on our most popular OS
>>>>> systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
