L PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 11:17 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: 3.3 build
>
>
>Hi,
>
>I'm doing some fixes in the nightly build, and I was wondering about
>changing the default to what most other jakarta projects are using.
>
>I hate creati
+0
Same sentiments as Nacho. I don't like it, but I can
cave in to peer pressure with the best of 'em... :-)
'Course this means I'll have to change all my own damn
customized scripts again... :-(
Mel
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm doing some fixes in the nightly build, and I was
> Let me know what you think - I would be very happy to hear
> you strongly
> disagree with mixing the source and build result, but if no
I strongly %*+-=&/) but not disagree..
> commiter -1
> it I guess we should do it.
>
I dont like it but i cant -1 it, everybody seems very conviced that t
Hi,
I'm doing some fixes in the nightly build, and I was wondering about
changing the default to what most other jakarta projects are using.
I hate creating build in jakarta-tomcat - but since most other projects
adopted this we should do it in 3.3 too. Now it's the right moment ( since
we are p
>Take a look at any RedHat ( or any similar, RPM-based linux system):
>/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/my-package
>/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/my-package
Just to complement, the RPM (not only Redhat) way :
Sources (+ patches) are in :
/usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/
ie: /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/jakarta-tomcat-src.t
d-gcc-2.95.2-cygwin-cross-linux
...
...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 5:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 3.3 build tree
> I see what you are saying, that a "make install" usually creates the fil
> I see what you are saying, that a "make install" usually creates the files
> in etc or opt rather and not in the source directory. I guess I look at
> "build" as more equivalent to "make", because I ususally just copy the
> resulting directory structure from build to the production location
> ma
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> I can say the same about building in the source directory... It just
> feels
> wrong and ugly ( kind of like having .class and .java in the same
> directory, instead of using javac -d ).
Same here, I hate that too.
Since most people involed with Tomcat seem to like
Steve Downey wrote:
> then, from in the bld-gcc-2.95.2, you run ../gcc-2.95.2/configure, and the
> build environment is created, while the source environment remains pristine.
> This is imperative if you're building for several environments out of the
> same source tree. In which case you might h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > GOMEZ Henri wrote:
> >
> > > And +1 for TC 3.x branch.
> >
> > Yes, please. =)
>
> Not so fast, please :-)
>
> There are scripts and people using the current style.
>
> -0 on changing 3.x:
> I think the sources and binaries shouldn't be in the same directory
> tree
> GOMEZ Henri wrote:
>
> > And +1 for TC 3.x branch.
>
> Yes, please. =)
Not so fast, please :-)
There are scripts and people using the current style.
-0 on changing 3.x:
I think the sources and binaries shouldn't be in the same directory
tree ( look at RedHat /usr/src hierarchy, look at g
11 matches
Mail list logo