You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Ray Chen <cl...@gmail.com> on 2010/02/05 06:56:20 UTC
Re: 6.0 Milestone testing -windowsXP-32
Hi Regis,
> I think java6 is missing <property name="hy.jar.compress" value="true" /> in
> make/properties.xml, so all the jars are not compressed.
>
> I propose to apply patch [1] to java6, that can significant reduce our build
> size as Ray mentioned before.
>
> [1]
> Index: make/properties.xml
> =====================================================================
> --- make/properties.xml
> +++ make/properties.xml
> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
> <property name="hy.javac.source" value="1.5" />
> <property name="hy.javac.target" value="1.5" />
> <property name="hy.javac.maxmem" value="384M" />
> + <property name="hy.jar.compress" value="true" />
>
> <!-- Temporarily always include class file debug info -->
> <condition property="hy.javac.debug" value="on" else="on">
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Regis.
>
Should this patch be committed? Or has been committed?
--
Regards,
Ray Chen
Re: 6.0 Milestone testing -windowsXP-32
Posted by Regis <xu...@gmail.com>.
On 2010-02-05 13:56, Ray Chen wrote:
> Hi Regis,
>
>> I think java6 is missing<property name="hy.jar.compress" value="true" /> in
>> make/properties.xml, so all the jars are not compressed.
>>
>> I propose to apply patch [1] to java6, that can significant reduce our build
>> size as Ray mentioned before.
>>
>> [1]
>> Index: make/properties.xml
>> =====================================================================
>> --- make/properties.xml
>> +++ make/properties.xml
>> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
>> <property name="hy.javac.source" value="1.5" />
>> <property name="hy.javac.target" value="1.5" />
>> <property name="hy.javac.maxmem" value="384M" />
>> +<property name="hy.jar.compress" value="true" />
>>
>> <!-- Temporarily always include class file debug info -->
>> <condition property="hy.javac.debug" value="on" else="on">
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>> Regis.
>>
>
> Should this patch be committed? Or has been committed?
>
Ray,
Thanks for reminder, committed at r906824.
--
Best Regards,
Regis.