Re: ant dependency on jython and antlr
Hallo Daniel,
* Daniel Bonniot wrote:
>You mean that optional.jar has specific knowledge about jython?
I'm not sure about jython (haven't looked), but optional.jar has the
glue for junit (->junit task). Junit knows nothing about ant.
>>This
>>means that if any package wants to use a task in its build, it will
>>Build-Depends: on ant and will think that it works.
>That should be OK if it needs a core or optional ant task.
AFAIK the junit task is in the optional.jar.
>>In the current
>>setup, it will. With your setup, all packages, which will use a
>>additional task need to Build-Depends: on junit, jython or whatever.
>If a package needs the jython task, it seems normal to me that it would
>need to Build-depend on both ant and jython.
If thats consensus (sp?), so it be :)
>On http://ant.apache.org/manual/optionaltasklist.html I don't see any
>mention of jython. There is a antlr task, though. Does jython now belong
>to the optional tasks of ant upstream?
I'm not sure, but if ant Depends on jython, it seem so...
>>What you suggests is 'could be
>>used from make programms' Suggests: make.
>The difference is that no 'glue' is needed for a Makefile to make use of
>a program.
Yes, thats true. Only that a user won't know the difference...
>>This is already done: ant dows provide all tasks in optional.jar and
>>IMO, it shouldn't Suggests: ant :)
>Are you implying that only ant is supposed to provide ant tasks?
No, but all other packages will have mostly one purpose: adding a
task. For them to Depends: on ant would be kind of natural.
[splitting optional.jar]
>It's a possible design, which sounds ok to me. Alternatively, what would
>be wrong with including the task in the package that provides the
>underlying facility?
Nothing, but it's quite a task to coordinate that or even provide
pacthes for upstream and telling apache ants people to stop including
that tak in there distribution...
>>Please note, that the gentoo guys (gentoo-java ML) currently discuss
>>the same problem: They have the problem that ant requires all
>>underlying programm/library/whatever be available at buildtime.
>Which is brain-dead, do we agree on that? Besides violating our Policy,
>as I explained.
We have the same problem (optional.jar surely will not compile without
junit installed), but we distribute binary packages, so we could add
only suggests and the actual packages, which use the task could
Depends: on the 'functionality' package. gentoo doesn't have that
option, as they build from source...
Anyway, the more I have to do with java packaging, the more braindead
it seems to me...
Jan
--
Jan Schulz jasc@gmx.net
"Wer nicht fragt, bleibt dumm."
Reply to: