The entire lbel tree appeared to be dependent on StringCompator which
was dependent on Jakarta-Oro. The build file's lack of Oro checking on
build-log4j strongly suggested that it was not intended for Oro
dependent files to be compiled in that step and the lbel files were not
included in the l
Hello Scott,
-1, because:
The build file is already non trivial. Duplicating it sounds like a
terribly bad idea.
At 10:39 PM 12/18/2004, Scott Deboy wrote:
How about a compromise:
Rename the current build target to build-deps-optional and make a new
(default) build target that fails on missing d
17/2004 2:59 PM
To: Log4J Developers List
Cc:
Subject: RE: cvs commit: logging-log4j build.xml
At 08:23 PM 12/17/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>
>Hey Jake,
>
>The current system has the advantage of building a
functional
>log4j.jar out of the box. It is in place since about
1659 and in
>
Cc:
Subject:RE: cvs commit: logging-log4j build.xml
At 08:23 PM 12/17/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>
>Hey Jake,
>
>The current system has the advantage of building a functional
>log4j.jar out of the box. It is in place since about 1659 and in
>practice no one has ever c
At 08:23 PM 12/17/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>
>Hey Jake,
>
>The current system has the advantage of building a functional
>log4j.jar out of the box. It is in place since about 1659 and in
>practice no one has ever complained about it.
>
1659? I don't get it. Anyway, you've got two now (if I can spea
Hey Jake,
The current system has the advantage of building a functional
log4j.jar out of the box. It is in place since about 1659 and in
practice no one has ever complained about it.
At 07:19 PM 12/17/2004, you wrote:
Hi Scott,
I think that your change is, indeed, consistent with the rest of the bu
change the build so that a missing ORO jar prevents
> compilation or creation of log4j or chainsaw jars? If so, should we do the
> same for the other dependencies (jms, mail, etc.)?
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:
At 09:37 AM 12/17/2004, Scott Deboy wrote:
I'm a bit confused.
Originally, this thread started with the bug discovered by Curt where
if you did not have a build.properties file and invoked 'ant jar',
you'd get a log4j-chainsaw.jar file containing .html .jpg files but no
.class files because the com
ompilation or creation of log4j or chainsaw jars? If so, should we do the
same for the other dependencies (jms, mail, etc.)?
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 12/16/2004 9:09 AM
To: Log4J Developers List
Cc:
Subject: RE:
At 05:53 PM 12/16/2004, Scott Deboy wrote:
A few more thoughts:
You can't tell by the jar name that it doesn't include the ORO dependencies.
and likely to cause avoidable confusion down the road.
For this reason, if it was a concern I'd be +0 on reverting the ant script
changes, but I'd like to le
y the way, if anyone would like to give on the o.a.l.rule package I'd love to
hear it.
-Original Message-
From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thu 12/16/2004 5:08 AM
To: Log4J Developers List
Cc:
Subject: Re: cvs commit: logging-log4j build.xml
S
Scott, in light of my last message, do you think it is preferable to revert
this change a go yesterday's state?
At 08:19 AM 12/16/2004, you wrote:
sdeboy 2004/12/15 23:19:03
Modified:.build.xml
Log:
chainsaw.jar target no longer fails if ORO path is not defined in
build.pr
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: cvs commit: logging-log4j build.xml
> Ok, I'll remove that dependency from the Gump descriptor. Thanks.
>
> regards
>
> Adam
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTEC
Ok, I'll remove that dependency from the Gump descriptor. Thanks.
regards
Adam
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9:36 AM
Subject: cvs commit: logging-log4j build.xml
> sdeboy 2004/06/08 08:36:29
>
> Modified:.
14 matches
Mail list logo
