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
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 -
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 lib
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
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 th
