Le samedi 4 novembre 2017, 14:43:46 CET John Patrick a écrit : > I've got a few updates I feel would be useful for the next major version; > > 1) Packaging type generic 'archive', or specific zip or tar.gz > - maybe a user property to enable zip and/or tar.gz > > 2) Packaging type generic 'application', or specific rpm or deb > - in future could be extended for windows installers too > > Over the past 6 years I've mainly created jar, war or ear, but for > deployment the standard is bundle it up into a tar.gz or zip, along > with the ansible scripts or custom scripts. So I usually use pom > packaging then adding assembly plugin, just feels strange doing that > all the time and it might make it more simpler for everyone. do you have some demos of such packagings?
> > 3) Checksum, switch to SHA3, drop md5 and sha1. If we care about > security, we should keep up to date with what is considered secure > still. -1 checksums are checksums, not security if you want security, don't look at checksums but at signatures This makes me think that we should find a way to show security (with these signatures): I don't know precisely how, but that would definitely be useful > > 3) Debian style repo management. Instead of having a massive bucket of > artefacts, start having repo's either based upon java class version, > or maven major release version. Also split more than just release and > snapshot, maybe core, plugins, general... > > Not sure exactly the best solution, but as maven central has stuff > going back years and years. How much of the old stuff will be used for > new projects going forward. what's the objective? with Linux distributions, there are compatibility issues that require different artifacts, and an objective to keep distro on one CD/DVD But Java and central don't have such considerations > > Anyway, those are some of my thoughts, if their is a more formal way > of suggesting them let me know and I'll be happy to raise them > separately for consideration and maybe also do some pull requests for > them. I think the packaging ideas deserve some demos to see if something can be made generic enough Regards, Hervé > > John > > On 4 November 2017 at 13:18, Paul Hammant <p...@hammant.org> wrote: > >> > *3. More pluggable dependency resolver:* > >> > >> I am willing to let this be optional scope for now. May be yanked if too > >> risky or not ready in time > > > > I don't see how you can even make it optional without a pom specified way > > of saying "not maven central, this way/place instead" > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
