RFC: ant 1.6.3

[Arnaud Vandyck]

=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:38:26 +0200,=20
Wolfgang Baer <WBaer@gmx.de> wrote:=20

> that was not my intention at all !

Yep, I understood.

> The question was packaging as an update to libant1.6 *after* sarge
> release or if we should packaging it as an new upstream release of
> libant1.6 AT ALL (because of the existing breaking changes) !

I understood that too ;-)

Maybe libant1.6.3 could be a good idea because of the breackage, but I'd
like to have some more feedbacks because I'd prefer to keep
libant1.6. Are these changes very importants? The sub ant task could
break things, I don't think the tar thing is bad, nor the Reference in
object, nor the addition in the junit task, nor the additions in jikes
compiler adapter (for references, Wolfgang listed the changes here:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-java-maintainers/2005-April/00=
3244.html)...

Am I wrong? Is the only 'stopper' could be the subant task? and if it's
the only stopper, should we ignore it?

Cheers,

=2D --=20
  .''`.=20
 : :' :rnaud
 `. `'=20=20
   `-=20=20=20=20
Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCb9HC4vzFZu62tMIRAsGLAKCJx1bzhJI9S2bDXcNdIIBp9mhf4QCdFrVI
XpwQiSj5y8I+GXdQUDvZ2ig=3D
=3Dd0dl
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----