Why do you object so strongly to having binaries in the source tree?
It's not going to suck up that much size, and it greatly simplifies
things. For casual developers or users, or those who don't use the
java libraries, it'll mean "make check" actually passes simply.
An alternative would be to use maven to fulfill the dependencies, but
I don't really have any personal experience with that. If someone
wanted to contribute to that approach, I'd be pretty pumped.
-Bryan
On Apr 10, 2009, at 4:51 PM, David Reiss wrote:
Yes, I object to adding external binaries to our source tree.
If we want to add them to release tarballs, that is fine.
--David
Bryan Duxbury wrote:
I tend to agree here. Other Java projects that have jars as
dependencies tend to put the jars in source control in a lib
directory. This would make our build file a lot simpler and the whole
project a lot easier to operate.
Does anyone object to adding the jars to the project? If not, I'll
add the needed jars and update the build file.
-Bryan
On Apr 10, 2009, at 4:27 PM, Michael Stockton wrote:
I tried to build thrift this afternoon and failed because I don't
have log4j on my machine. This seems to be a bit unfriendly at the
moment and to me feels like a 0.1 blocker-type issue. How many
people will give up on thrift if make fails? Can we bundle log4j
with thrift or find a better way to fail?
Michael
