Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] ant/dmake to gbuild conversions

2011-09-23 Thread Bjoern Michaelsen
Hi Peter, Michael, all,

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:12:38 +0100
Michael Meeks 
wrote:

>   Clearly there is then no prohibition on using ant, or
> external / java packages that require it - but Peter's patches seem
> to convert two of the five modules using ant to (cleaner) gnu make
> files in the process and leave only: beanshell scripting and xmerge
> requiring ant.
> 
>   Seems like progress to me, I'd love to see that included.

I would have to agree. The patches look pretty clean(*) and look way
better than the original codegenerated ant build.xmls. I also agree
that we should stick with ant for _external_ projects that use it as
their buildsystem (and not plug in our own build system like had been
done with dmake at a few places), but for the modules in question now
gbuildifying them seems to be a good thing. So: no objections --
actually quite fine work there, Peter!

Best,

Bjoern

(*) But as with all things build system you need tinderboxes to be sure.
-- 
https://launchpad.net/~bjoern-michaelsen


___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice


Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] ant/dmake to gbuild conversions

2011-09-23 Thread Peter Foley
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011, Michael Meeks wrote:

> 
> On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 04:28 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> > Well, Peter asked the question on the list before starting to work on
> > it and and the consensus was that for these limited cases the benefit
> > outweighed the cost.
> 
>   Indeed - the outcome of the:
> 
>   'use of apache ant in libreoffice'
> 
>   thread from Wed, seemed (to me) to be that there is an advantage to
> being able to properly parallelize and gnumake-ify the java compiles,
> and if there are (increasingly) few java pieces and we can drop ant in
> some star-trek future as a build dep, that is surely no bad thing.
> 
>   Clearly there is then no prohibition on using ant, or external / java
> packages that require it - but Peter's patches seem to convert two of
> the five modules using ant to (cleaner) gnu make files in the process
> and leave only: beanshell scripting and xmerge requiring ant.
> 
>   Seems like progress to me, I'd love to see that included.

I'm going to work on converting the other ant modules soon. 
I'll commit these 2 patches after I finish testing them a bit more.

Peter
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice


Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] ant/dmake to gbuild conversions

2011-09-23 Thread Michael Meeks

On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 04:28 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> Well, Peter asked the question on the list before starting to work on
> it and and the consensus was that for these limited cases the benefit
> outweighed the cost.

Indeed - the outcome of the:

'use of apache ant in libreoffice'

thread from Wed, seemed (to me) to be that there is an advantage to
being able to properly parallelize and gnumake-ify the java compiles,
and if there are (increasingly) few java pieces and we can drop ant in
some star-trek future as a build dep, that is surely no bad thing.

Clearly there is then no prohibition on using ant, or external / java
packages that require it - but Peter's patches seem to convert two of
the five modules using ant to (cleaner) gnu make files in the process
and leave only: beanshell scripting and xmerge requiring ant.

Seems like progress to me, I'd love to see that included.

ATB,

Michael.

-- 
michael.me...@suse.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice


Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] ant/dmake to gbuild conversions

2011-09-23 Thread Norbert Thiebaud
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Rene Engelhard  wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 04:38:35PM -0400, Peter Foley wrote:
>> I've attached two ant/dmake to gbuild conversions. Review would be
>> appreciated.
>
> Well, as people already said, ant is the standard tool for Java "make".
> I'd disagree to change this.

Well, Peter asked the question on the list before starting to work on
it and and the consensus was that for these limited cases the benefit
outweighed the cost.


> In this case, you also (by a quick skimming
> over the patch, maybe I oversaw it, but..) lost important parts of
> makefile.mk - like the Class-Path: fixing.

I'm really not versed in Java related thing.. but there is a
gb_Jar_set_jarclasspath() function. doesn't that already do the
necessary 'fixing' ?

Norbert
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice


Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] ant/dmake to gbuild conversions

2011-09-22 Thread Rene Engelhard
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 04:38:35PM -0400, Peter Foley wrote:
> I've attached two ant/dmake to gbuild conversions. Review would be 
> appreciated.

Well, as people already said, ant is the standard tool for Java "make".
I'd disagree to change this. In this case, you also (by a quick skimming
over the patch, maybe I oversaw it, but..) lost important parts of
makefile.mk - like the Class-Path: fixing.

Grüße/Regards,

René
-- 
 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70
   `-   Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice