RFC: Package structure of ant

[Jerry Haltom]

Almost every package I have seen uses ant as a lib. In fact, name on
that doesn't?

The build scripts for most packages invoke the VM and point it to the
Ant library. They don't invoke the Ant binary wrapper.

Eclipse is the same. It has no need for the binary Ant wrapper.

Just pointing this out.

On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 13:38 -0400, Barry Hawkins wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Wolfgang Baer wrote:
> [...]
> > Another strcuture would be:
> > 
> > ant - scripts and core tasks jars
> > ant-doc - javadoc and manual
> > ant-optional - optional tasks jars
> > 
> > One problem in question is the java-policy. Is ant a program with its
> > own auxiliary jars or is it a library (which would mean we have to
> > name the packages libant... and could not include the core tasks jars
> > in the ant binary package). If I understand the java policy correct.
> [...]
> Wolfgang,
>     First of all, thanks for all your work on Ant's packaging.  Second,
> I give a +1 for the second approach (shown above).  Very few separate
> applications use Ant and its core tasks as a library; it's purpose it
> building Java applications in an automated fashion.  As such, the binary
> packaging strategy listed above makes the most sense to me.
> 
> Regards,
> - --
> Barry Hawkins
> site: www.bytemason.org
> weblog: www.yepthatsme.com
> 
> Registered Linux User #368650
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFDJw6nHuKcDICy0QoRAoqsAJ9oDyH5H5+wonDwXAWdbar9oNtiLwCg4EIr
> YrSf3IPPsDCo/knBYGLH/vU=
> =rZIa
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----