Am 02.09.2016 um 13:48 schrieb Ricardo Wurmus: >> > I found all of these need intervention for building, as there is no >> > "install" target (maybe I missed something). Echo of the packages >> > behaves a bit different (e.g. different directory names), while >> > sharing some common patterns. I'll attach my WIP for your convenience. > “ant-build-system” creates a “build.xml” with an install target when > “#:jar-name” is provided. This is useful in case there’s only a > “pom.xml” and the package provides a single jar.
Yes, this is what you wrote earlier today. But most of these (four) commons packages habe a build.xml, But they behave differently. Some build into "target", some into "dist/", some put docs in "apidocs/" others into "docs/api/". Or do you suggest to use a build.xml created be ant-build-system? -- Schönen Gruß Hartmut Goebel Dipl.-Informatiker (univ), CISSP, CSSLP, ISO 27001 Lead Implementer Information Security Management, Security Governance, Secure Software Development Goebel Consult, Landshut http://www.goebel-consult.de Blog: http://www.goebel-consult.de/blog/fortbildung-iso-27001-lead-implementer Kolumne: http://www.cissp-gefluester.de/2010-09-mut-zur-beschraenkung
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
