Guten Tag Rhys Ulerich,
am Sonntag, 10. Januar 2016 um 21:32 schrieben Sie:
> Even if we drop cpptasks for build purposes, will we still need Maven
> to use the current site generation?
Yes, I even think in combination with some logic of ANT's build.xml,
but didn't look at the details yet.
But t
On Jan 10, 2016 13:09, "Thorsten Schöning" wrote:
>
> Guten Tag Wiebesiek, Torsten,
> am Sonntag, 10. Januar 2016 um 19:03 schrieben Sie:
>
> > I don't want to start a general discussion about which build system
> > is best. Such thing does not exist.
>
> But some day we need to decide, e.g. if a
> In fact, former releases of
> log4cxx already contained project files generated by cpptaasks.
Even if we drop cpptasks for build purposes, will we still need Maven
to use the current site generation?
- Rhys
Guten Tag Wiebesiek, Torsten,
am Sonntag, 10. Januar 2016 um 19:03 schrieben Sie:
> I don't want to start a general discussion about which build system
> is best. Such thing does not exist.
But some day we need to decide, e.g. if a complete rewrite for CMAKE
is preferable over staying with autoco
Hello Thorsten,
you're right: there's no build system, that works for all possible combinations
of operating systems and compilers/IDEs. But the build of log4cxx is a problem
probably not only for me.
I believe, that the build process of log4cxx has to be easy to maintain and
well documented.
