Re: Ant 1.7.0?

[Peter Reilly <pe...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

Will Tatam has updated the package for us and I have uploaded it to JPP
> 1.7 'devel'.
>
> However, I had to disabl the manifest-only subpackage so I could build
> and uploaded it to JPP 1.7 devel, as those JARs are no longer being
> generated.  Lets see if someone can figure out why the MANIFEST-only
> JARs are not generated anymore in Ant 1.7.0.
>
>
This is due a change in the jar task, it will not make MANIFEST-only files
if
the attribute "whenmanifestonly"="skip". This attribute is now used in ant's
build.xml.
It can be overridden by setting the property "optional.jars.whenmanifestonly"
= "build"
i.e. ./build.sh -Doptional.jars.whenmanifestonly=build
The relavant changes to build.xml are:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ant/core/trunk/build.xml?r1=278535&r2=293157&diff_format=h
and
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ant/core/trunk/build.xml?r1=293157&r2=295060&diff_format=h

I am not too sure that it is a good idea to generate the MANIFEST-only files
- these
correspond to ant tasks and types that do not get built. It was a common
report that
a certain task did not work, the reporter said that say ant-apache-bsf.jarwere
bsf.jar is present in $ANT_HOME/lib,
on investigation, the reporter had built ant themselves without bsf.jar in
$ANT_BUILD/lib/optional.

There is also a stacktrace when generating the javadocs using a BEA
> 1.4.2 JDK.  With the Sun 1.5 one that goes away.  I still have to try
> the Sun 1.4.2 JDK to see if it is related to the brand or to the Java
> version.
>
> If there is an issue here please enter a bug.
Note that ant 1.7 should be compiled with java5, it can be compiled
with java1.4, but a small part will be left out.

P.S.: I looked into the build logs for the old 1.6.5 Ant and for the
> 1.7.0 that did not generate the manifest-only JARs and it clearly shows
> where the builds differ.  If someone want to dig a little deeper into
> this...
>
> Fernando Nasser wrote:
> > I didn't see anything in the list that would really affect us.
> >
> > So, it _*seems*_ we can upgrade.  We can try and add a 1.7.0 0.b2.1jpp RPM
> > to 1.7 'devel' and try building with it.
> >
> > Jason Corley wrote:
> >> I do not know, but found these (long-ish) blurbs:
> >>
> >> -----
>
>
We try to doc all changes here (but can miss a few!).

>>
> >> Not sure how much that really answers your question.
> >> Jason
> >>
> >> On 9/21/06, Fernando Nasser <fnasser@... <http://gmane.org/get-address.php?address=fnasser%2dH%2bwXaHxf7aLQT0dZR%2bAlfA%40public.gmane.org>> wrote:
> >>> Hi guys,
> >>>
> >>> Someone asked me in off for Ant 1.7.0, which is actually B2.
> >>>
> >>> Anyone knows how compatible that is with our 1.6.x Ant?
>
>
The intention is that it should be as compatible as possible both at the
java
api level and especially at the build script level.

>>>
> >>> Regards to all,
> >>> Fernando
> >>>
> >>> P.S.: It would be nice to release JPP 1.7 with Ant 1.7 (as we released
> >>> JPP 1.6 with Ant 1.6.x).  There is no real connection between the
> >>> releases but it does sound nice [image: :-)]
>
>
True ;-)


Looking at
http://www.jpackage.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/rpms/free/ant/?root=jpackage&pathrev=JPACKAGE-1_7
I think that we can get most of these patches into ant directly except for
apache-ant-bz163689.patch.

There is one change I would like in jpackage, it is to do with the
/etc/ant.conf. It gets "dot" ed from the ant bash
script. It overwrites ANT_HOME (unless the -noconfig option is set). This
has given rise
to a large number of e-mails to user@ant.apache.org, and  a number of bug
reports:

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40623
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31278
+ others

the ant script file has been altered to whine if /etc/ant.conf changes the
user's ANT_HOME.
One suggestion is that /etc/ant.conf does not modify ANT_HOME if it is
already
set - ANT_HOME=${ANT_HOME:-/usr/share/ant}, however this I think does not
work as $rpm_mode will still be set, and ant will be called with the user's
ANT_HOME/lib/*.jar
and the contents of /etc/ant.d/*.
I think that /etc/ant.conf should *not* be called if the env variable
ANT_HOME is set but
would need to get agreement from jpackage people before doing this.
Peter