You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@santuario.apache.org by Berin Lautenbach <be...@wingsofhermes.org> on 2004/04/04 14:53:13 UTC
Updates to build-ant1.5
Peoples,
I've just tried to move all the functionality from build.xml into
build-ant1.5.xml. In particular
- samples exist and run
- tests now run
- header at startup (version etc.)
- build src and distribution archives
- external call to forrest to build docs
Could people have a look? I've tried to strip everything right back to
basics, but there may be simpler/cleaner ways to do things, so feel free
to comment and/or change directly!
Are we happy to move to this as the formal build.xml?
I really want to get a release out in the next few days, so let me know.
Cheers,
Berin
Re: Updates to build-ant1.5
Posted by Erwin van der Koogh <vd...@apache.org>.
>>> - tests now run
>>
>> They didn't before? I changed it to not rely on a junit.jar in the lib
>> directory, but instead on a junit included in the ant lib directory.
>> But I noticed that you put the junit jar back into the classpath.
>> Didn't it work for you? Or did you not have junit in your ant lib
>> directory?
>
>
> Oops. My deepest apologies - they did work. What didn't work was the
> specific tests (ant -f build-ant1.5 test_xenc). I got them working, but
> it was a very minor change.
No problem :) I was just wondering if they were working or not. It might
have been something to do with the particular version of ant or jdk I was
using.
> The ant one works fine if you are using a <junit> task (which is how ant
> test works), but the test_xenc stuff calles junit from a java task.
> Probably the cleaner way to fix it would be to set up test_xenc as a junit
> task.
I'll see if I can get the other tests to be junit tasks as well.
>> I was also wondering why you had a commented out <!--path
>> refid="id.classpath.coverage" /--> in your id.classpath, where I didn't
>> have it in the original, but maybe I have commented it out in the
>> meantime :)
>
>
> I don't *think* I touched that. I also just checked the cvs record (BTW -
> did I tell people that the cvs mailing list is now archived at
> xml.apache.org/mail/security-cvs ?) and it doesn't appear I changed it, so
> I'm blaming you <GRIN>.
Oh yeah.. blame me :)
I don't mind.. not at all.
You also forgot to mention CVS commits are archived, but thanks for doing
it.
>> Well.. I have been playing around with making 3 build files to split up
>> functionality.
>>
>> How about we have seperate build files for:
>>
>> - Samples
>> - Distributions
>> - Normal development (compile, test etc)
>
>
> I like that. I assume they would all be included into the one high level
> build.xml? My only constraint woudl be can we wait until post 1.1? I'm
> already wary that I'm doing some large changes to the build file just
> prior to release.
I am not sure it would be feasible to have them all included into one big
happy build file. But even if they didn't it would be too hard. Just add a
-f build-sample.xml option to ant and it would work.
>>> Are we happy to move to this as the formal build.xml?
>>
>> I can't wait to get rid of the beast :)
>
> <GRIN>. I'll take that as a +1. It's got +1 from me as well. If I get
> no vetos, lets make the change. We can rename the old one
> build-ant.deprecated or some such.
And yes that was a +1 ;-)
Erwin
Kill and Switch (Re: Updates to build-ant1.5)
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <di...@yahoo.com>.
+1 (non-binding) to kill the build.xml
+1 to rename build-ant1.5.xml to build.xml :)
-- dims
--- Axl Mattheus <Ax...@Sun.COM> wrote:
> Berin Lautenbach wrote:
>
> >>>- tests now run
> >>>
> >>>
> >>They didn't before? I changed it to not rely on a junit.jar in the lib
> >>directory, but instead on a junit included in the ant lib directory.
> >>But I noticed that you put the junit jar back into the classpath.
> >>Didn't it work for you? Or did you not have junit in your ant lib
> >>directory?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >Oops. My deepest apologies - they did work. What didn't work was the
> >specific tests (ant -f build-ant1.5 test_xenc). I got them working, but
> >it was a very minor change.
> >
> >The ant one works fine if you are using a <junit> task (which is how ant
> >test works), but the test_xenc stuff calles junit from a java task.
> >Probably the cleaner way to fix it would be to set up test_xenc as a junit
> >task.
> >
> >
> >
> >>I was also wondering why you had a commented out <!--path
> >>refid="id.classpath.coverage" /--> in your id.classpath, where I didn't
> >> have it in the original, but maybe I have commented it out in the
> >>meantime :)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >I don't *think* I touched that. I also just checked the cvs record (BTW -
> >did I tell people that the cvs mailing list is now archived at
> >xml.apache.org/mail/security-cvs ?) and it doesn't appear I changed it, so
> >I'm blaming you <GRIN>.
> >
> >
> >
> >>In any case I am fairly certain it can go :)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>- header at startup (version etc.)
> >>>- build src and distribution archives
> >>>- external call to forrest to build docs
> >>>
> >>>Could people have a look? I've tried to strip everything right back
> >>>to basics, but there may be simpler/cleaner ways to do things, so feel
> >>>free to comment and/or change directly!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Well.. I have been playing around with making 3 build files to split up
> >> functionality.
> >>
> >>How about we have seperate build files for:
> >>
> >>- Samples
> >>- Distributions
> >>- Normal development (compile, test etc)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >I like that. I assume they would all be included into the one high level
> >build.xml? My only constraint woudl be can we wait until post 1.1? I'm
> >already wary that I'm doing some large changes to the build file just
> >prior to release.
> >
> >
> +1.
>
> >
> >
> >>>Are we happy to move to this as the formal build.xml?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I can't wait to get rid of the beast :)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> ><GRIN>. I'll take that as a +1. It's got +1 from me as well. If I get
> >no vetos, lets make the change. We can rename the old one
> >build-ant.deprecated or some such.
> >
> >
> I was sick of build.xml eons ago - that is why I started
> build-ant1.5.xml. The world would be a better place without
> xml-security/build.xml. +1 to kill it.
>
> >Cheers,
> > Berin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
=====
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
Re: Updates to build-ant1.5
Posted by Axl Mattheus <Ax...@Sun.COM>.
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
>>>- tests now run
>>>
>>>
>>They didn't before? I changed it to not rely on a junit.jar in the lib
>>directory, but instead on a junit included in the ant lib directory.
>>But I noticed that you put the junit jar back into the classpath.
>>Didn't it work for you? Or did you not have junit in your ant lib
>>directory?
>>
>>
>
>
>Oops. My deepest apologies - they did work. What didn't work was the
>specific tests (ant -f build-ant1.5 test_xenc). I got them working, but
>it was a very minor change.
>
>The ant one works fine if you are using a <junit> task (which is how ant
>test works), but the test_xenc stuff calles junit from a java task.
>Probably the cleaner way to fix it would be to set up test_xenc as a junit
>task.
>
>
>
>>I was also wondering why you had a commented out <!--path
>>refid="id.classpath.coverage" /--> in your id.classpath, where I didn't
>> have it in the original, but maybe I have commented it out in the
>>meantime :)
>>
>>
>
>
>I don't *think* I touched that. I also just checked the cvs record (BTW -
>did I tell people that the cvs mailing list is now archived at
>xml.apache.org/mail/security-cvs ?) and it doesn't appear I changed it, so
>I'm blaming you <GRIN>.
>
>
>
>>In any case I am fairly certain it can go :)
>>
>>
>>
>>>- header at startup (version etc.)
>>>- build src and distribution archives
>>>- external call to forrest to build docs
>>>
>>>Could people have a look? I've tried to strip everything right back
>>>to basics, but there may be simpler/cleaner ways to do things, so feel
>>>free to comment and/or change directly!
>>>
>>>
>>Well.. I have been playing around with making 3 build files to split up
>> functionality.
>>
>>How about we have seperate build files for:
>>
>>- Samples
>>- Distributions
>>- Normal development (compile, test etc)
>>
>>
>
>
>I like that. I assume they would all be included into the one high level
>build.xml? My only constraint woudl be can we wait until post 1.1? I'm
>already wary that I'm doing some large changes to the build file just
>prior to release.
>
>
+1.
>
>
>>>Are we happy to move to this as the formal build.xml?
>>>
>>>
>>I can't wait to get rid of the beast :)
>>
>>
>
>
><GRIN>. I'll take that as a +1. It's got +1 from me as well. If I get
>no vetos, lets make the change. We can rename the old one
>build-ant.deprecated or some such.
>
>
I was sick of build.xml eons ago - that is why I started
build-ant1.5.xml. The world would be a better place without
xml-security/build.xml. +1 to kill it.
>Cheers,
> Berin
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Updates to build-ant1.5
Posted by Berin Lautenbach <be...@wingsofhermes.org>.
>> - tests now run
>
> They didn't before? I changed it to not rely on a junit.jar in the lib
> directory, but instead on a junit included in the ant lib directory.
> But I noticed that you put the junit jar back into the classpath.
> Didn't it work for you? Or did you not have junit in your ant lib
> directory?
Oops. My deepest apologies - they did work. What didn't work was the
specific tests (ant -f build-ant1.5 test_xenc). I got them working, but
it was a very minor change.
The ant one works fine if you are using a <junit> task (which is how ant
test works), but the test_xenc stuff calles junit from a java task.
Probably the cleaner way to fix it would be to set up test_xenc as a junit
task.
>
> I was also wondering why you had a commented out <!--path
> refid="id.classpath.coverage" /--> in your id.classpath, where I didn't
> have it in the original, but maybe I have commented it out in the
> meantime :)
I don't *think* I touched that. I also just checked the cvs record (BTW -
did I tell people that the cvs mailing list is now archived at
xml.apache.org/mail/security-cvs ?) and it doesn't appear I changed it, so
I'm blaming you <GRIN>.
>
> In any case I am fairly certain it can go :)
>
>> - header at startup (version etc.)
>> - build src and distribution archives
>> - external call to forrest to build docs
>>
>> Could people have a look? I've tried to strip everything right back
>> to basics, but there may be simpler/cleaner ways to do things, so feel
>> free to comment and/or change directly!
>
> Well.. I have been playing around with making 3 build files to split up
> functionality.
>
> How about we have seperate build files for:
>
> - Samples
> - Distributions
> - Normal development (compile, test etc)
I like that. I assume they would all be included into the one high level
build.xml? My only constraint woudl be can we wait until post 1.1? I'm
already wary that I'm doing some large changes to the build file just
prior to release.
>
>> Are we happy to move to this as the formal build.xml?
>
> I can't wait to get rid of the beast :)
<GRIN>. I'll take that as a +1. It's got +1 from me as well. If I get
no vetos, lets make the change. We can rename the old one
build-ant.deprecated or some such.
Cheers,
Berin
Re: Updates to build-ant1.5
Posted by Erwin van der Koogh <vd...@apache.org>.
> I've just tried to move all the functionality from build.xml into
> build-ant1.5.xml. In particular
>
> - samples exist and run
> - tests now run
They didn't before? I changed it to not rely on a junit.jar in the lib
directory, but instead on a junit included in the ant lib directory. But I
noticed that you put the junit jar back into the classpath. Didn't it work
for you? Or did you not have junit in your ant lib directory?
I was also wondering why you had a commented out <!--path
refid="id.classpath.coverage" /--> in your id.classpath, where I didn't
have it in the original, but maybe I have commented it out in the meantime
:)
In any case I am fairly certain it can go :)
> - header at startup (version etc.)
> - build src and distribution archives
> - external call to forrest to build docs
>
> Could people have a look? I've tried to strip everything right back to
> basics, but there may be simpler/cleaner ways to do things, so feel free
> to comment and/or change directly!
Well.. I have been playing around with making 3 build files to split up
functionality.
How about we have seperate build files for:
- Samples
- Distributions
- Normal development (compile, test etc)
> Are we happy to move to this as the formal build.xml?
I can't wait to get rid of the beast :)
Erwin