| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Re: [PATCHES] Ant configuration |
| Date: | 2001-10-23 03:06:56 |
| Message-ID: | 484.1003806416@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com> writes:
> If we can include the ANT libraries in our CVS then my
> objection to ANT (requiring users to trackdown and download ANT) goes
> away, and I would then suggest we continue to use ANT for the other
> reasons you mention.
The sheer bulk of the ANT libraries rules that out, even if there
weren't a management/synchronization issue: do you want a PG release to
be using an older ANT than what you have already installed locally?
On the other hand, I can see no reason why we shouldn't say that you
*must* have ANT installed to build the JDBC driver. You've gotta have
Java to build JDBC, no? Seems like ANT is just one more dependency,
and hardly an unreasonable one if it's the standard for Java projects.
What's wrong with saying "we don't build the JDBC driver if ANT isn't
installed"?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gunnar Rønning | 2001-10-23 05:28:40 | Re: Ant installation (and other) issues! |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-10-23 02:34:43 | Re: Ant installation (and other) issues! |