| 1 |
On 4/20/07, Vlastimil Babka <caster@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Krzysiek Pawlik wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> I propose to deprecate ejavac and remove it in gen3 - writting |
| 6 |
> build.xml files |
| 7 |
> >>> is very easy, so I don't see any reason why not to do so for few |
| 8 |
> packages still |
| 9 |
> >>> using ejavac: |
| 10 |
> >> Well is there any compelling reason not to support it? Works fine and |
| 11 |
> >> does what it is supposed to. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > IMVHO it's a hack to not write a build.xml, you have to run ejavac, then |
| 14 |
> jar, |
| 15 |
> > eventually javadoc - why? Isn't it easier (and less error prone) to do |
| 16 |
> it in |
| 17 |
> > build.xml? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I don't agree it's hack. I think it's easier to write few lines in |
| 20 |
> ebuild than writing build.xml which needs ant dependency, takes space in |
| 21 |
> FILESDIR and in the end does exactly the same thing. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Caster: ++ |
Archives