>Good if _they_ build it over there, _they_ can build the >modules as well.
you think they will build mod_jk and mod_jk2 ? In fact mod_jk is present in OS/400 but is really an old version (from 3.2) so wouldn't works against 3.3 / 4.0, that's why I want to work on it, without autoconf.... >When IBM will contribute back their build stuff to Apache 2.0 >and APR, maybe >we can think about that... I asked many times to the http-dev list and some IBMers told me they may one day. May be you could try also to convince them. I'll thanks you if you could succeed... >> So why are we using ant in jakarta instead of smaller makefiles ?) > >F**K: because those are TWO different things! I never said >ANYTHING about >building the webapp classes with ANT when those were build with Tomcat. >Building 10000 java class files and no C is different from building >APR+mod_webapp and maaaayyyybeeeee 10 java classes in ONE package... Yes, but the makefiles to build webapp and tomcats could be smaller than the build file ;-) >Different requirement, different tools... +1 >> ant is a great tool and it will be a PITA to avoid using it >> when it's a valid alternative to old like >autoconf/automake/libtool/m4. >> >> ant is ASF after all and run on all OS, so it's a good reason to use >> it when possible. jkant (in jtc) is a good example of >native-interaction >> module which boost ant... > > >Go and build APR on 20something different OSes with ANT, and we'll see >what's a PITA. When APR will be stabilized and officially released we could try to build it with jkant ;) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
