[gentoo-java] [RFC] Deprecation of ejavac

[gentoo-java] [RFC] Deprecation of ejavac

[Krzysiek Pawlik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1134 bytes --]


Hi,

I propose to deprecate ejavac and remove it in gen3 - writting build.xml files
is very easy, so I don't see any reason why not to do so for few packages still
using ejavac:

nelchael@nelchael dev-java$ grep ejavac */*.ebuild | cut -d : -f 1
bcmail/bcmail-1.36.ebuild
bcprov/bcprov-1.36.ebuild
ehcache/ehcache-1.1-r1.ebuild
ehcache/ehcache-1.2.4.ebuild
higlayout/higlayout-1.0-r1.ebuild
javacup/javacup-0.10k-r1.ebuild
jdbc2-stdext/jdbc2-stdext-2.0-r2.ebuild
jlex/jlex-1.2.6-r1.ebuild
jmdns/jmdns-1.0.ebuild
jmdns/jmdns-1.0.ebuild
jrexx/jrexx-1.1.1-r1.ebuild
jython/jython-2.1-r10.ebuild
jython/jython-2.1-r11.ebuild
jython/jython-2.1-r11.ebuild
oscache/oscache-2.0.2-r1.ebuild <-\
oscache/oscache-2.0.2-r1.ebuild <- That's just an overkill !
oscache/oscache-2.0.2-r1.ebuild <-/
randomguid/randomguid-1.2.1-r1.ebuild
sun-jimi/sun-jimi-1.0-r2.ebuild
sun-jms/sun-jms-1.1-r2.ebuild
trove/trove-1.0.2-r1.ebuild
nelchael@nelchael dev-java$

(those are only from dev-java/)

-- 
Krzysiek Pawlik   <nelchael at gentoo.org>   key id: 0xBC555551
desktop-misc, desktop-dock, x86, java, apache, ppc...


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-java] [RFC] Deprecation of ejavac

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 347 bytes --]

Krzysiek Pawlik kirjoitti:
> Hi,
> 
> I propose to deprecate ejavac and remove it in gen3 - writting build.xml files
> is very easy, so I don't see any reason why not to do so for few packages still
> using ejavac:

Well is there any compelling reason not to support it? Works fine and
does what it is supposed to.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-java] [RFC] Deprecation of ejavac

[Krzysiek Pawlik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 691 bytes --]

Petteri Räty wrote:
>> I propose to deprecate ejavac and remove it in gen3 - writting build.xml files
>> is very easy, so I don't see any reason why not to do so for few packages still
>> using ejavac:
> 
> Well is there any compelling reason not to support it? Works fine and
> does what it is supposed to.

IMVHO it's a hack to not write a build.xml, you have to run ejavac, then jar,
eventually javadoc - why? Isn't it easier (and less error prone) to do it in
build.xml?

BTW. you don't have to CC me when replying - I'm reading gentoo-java :)

-- 
Krzysiek Pawlik   <nelchael at gentoo.org>   key id: 0xBC555551
desktop-misc, desktop-dock, x86, java, apache, ppc...


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-java] [RFC] Deprecation of ejavac

[Vlastimil Babka]

Krzysiek Pawlik wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
>>> I propose to deprecate ejavac and remove it in gen3 - writting build.xml files
>>> is very easy, so I don't see any reason why not to do so for few packages still
>>> using ejavac:
>> Well is there any compelling reason not to support it? Works fine and
>> does what it is supposed to.
> 
> IMVHO it's a hack to not write a build.xml, you have to run ejavac, then jar,
> eventually javadoc - why? Isn't it easier (and less error prone) to do it in
> build.xml?

I don't agree it's hack. I think it's easier to write few lines in 
ebuild than writing build.xml which needs ant dependency, takes space in 
FILESDIR and in the end does exactly the same thing.

> BTW. you don't have to CC me when replying - I'm reading gentoo-java :)

He probably used 'Reply to All' because he's too sexy for 
USE=replytolist with thunderbird :)
-- 
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
-- 
gentoo-java@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-java] [RFC] Deprecation of ejavac

[Alistair Bush]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 836 bytes --]

On 4/20/07, Vlastimil Babka <caster@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Krzysiek Pawlik wrote:
> > Petteri Räty wrote:
> >>> I propose to deprecate ejavac and remove it in gen3 - writting
> build.xml files
> >>> is very easy, so I don't see any reason why not to do so for few
> packages still
> >>> using ejavac:
> >> Well is there any compelling reason not to support it? Works fine and
> >> does what it is supposed to.
> >
> > IMVHO it's a hack to not write a build.xml, you have to run ejavac, then
> jar,
> > eventually javadoc - why? Isn't it easier (and less error prone) to do
> it in
> > build.xml?
>
> I don't agree it's hack. I think it's easier to write few lines in
> ebuild than writing build.xml which needs ant dependency, takes space in
> FILESDIR and in the end does exactly the same thing.



Caster: ++

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1196 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-java] [RFC] Deprecation of ejavac

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 704 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 21:47 +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> I don't agree it's hack. I think it's easier to write few lines in 
> ebuild than writing build.xml which needs ant dependency, takes space in 
> FILESDIR and in the end does exactly the same thing.

I agree as well and just converted bcprov and bcmail to both use ejavac
and not use a build.xml. One, I believe bcprov, used to use a build.xml,
but for recent changes or etc I would have had to modify and then had
two versions to maintain and deal with. It's just another file to
maintain and I prefer to have as little files in filesdir as possible.
Ideally none other than digest :)

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/Java

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]