Another Make

Tue Oct 10 15:48:00 GMT 2000

On 2000年10月10日, Cedric Berger wrote:
> The same as you: redoing Ant, which is moreover provided with such
> a liberal license, is inherently stupid!
> We, developers, don't want/like/need fragmentation.
>> Beside: If you really want a GPL Ant, there is an easier way to redo
> anything: 
> - Download Ant source
> - Rename it Dog
> - Stick the GPL license on it
> - Give a few due acknowlegments
> - That's it.
>> This is the beauty of the BSD license.
>> Of course, if you feel like reprogramming Ant is a good and fun 
> exercise for you, do it; but please don't publish the result,
> unless it is really really better.
>> Sorry for the flame,

No, no that's ok.
The only problem I have with Ant is that it depends on the latest 
Sun/parser xml stuff and on Apache/xerces xml parser.
Also this is deffinitively the right way of doing it, it might make it
hard to port to gcj in the short term.
I was thinking of a simpler, cut down, version which would use the same
build.xml format that Ant. So that simple build.xml scripts could be use
as part of gcj for now and probably move to the more powerful Ant when
it does port to gcj. 
Anyway, I won't start anything unless you find it usefull at something.
-- 
Olivier.
_____________________________________________
NetRegistry http://www.netregistry.au.com