-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Nick, >> So bug #39977 is not an issue anymore? > > The groupId bit isn't. Now we understand what it should be, we can use > the java package, and all will be fine. > > Comment #2 (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39977#c2) > still needs looking at, by someone who understands what's up with the pom. If we are talking about this: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/poi/trunk/poi.pom
I can tell you that the line <issueTrackingUrl>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/</issueTrackingUrl> should be <issueManagement> <system>bugzilla</system> <url>http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/</url> </issueManagement> instead. I think that was maven1 and does NOT work for maven2 and modelVersion 4.0.0. BTW: I assume that we are just talking about maven2 here and NOT about maven1. For a complete reference see: http://maven.apache.org/maven-model/maven.html Since you have 3 artifacts (jar-files): poi, poi-contrib, poi-scratchpad you will need 3 individual pom.xml files. The poi-contrib and poi-scratchpad also need dependencies. Further you could think about creating an additional pom file to keep the parent metadata (licnese, scm, issueManagement, etc.) out of the other pom's and avoid redundancies. But since you named the main artifact "poi" and not e.g. "poi-core" this might not fit here. If you want I could create the three POM files for you and attach them to the bugzilla issue. Then you can see how to adjust your templates and ant build to have such outcome. Whenever you think about switching from ant to maven for the build just let me know, too ;) > >> Actually the groupId should be compliant to the package name. > > OK, I've fixed it in svn. The next build will use org.apache.poi as the > groupId okay. > >>> Also, as well as changing the group id, should I put the files under >>> /poi/, or under /org.apache.poi/ ? It looks like most apache projects >>> just use their short name, but a few use org.apache.<name> . We >>> currently use /poi/. >> The shorthand comes from the maven1 times where nobody cared about it. >> But its ugly and also causes that browsing the repository at top-level >> produces a really long list. There is quite a reasonable load on the >> server... >> Anyways it is the same for java-packages. If you do NOT use it properly >> it might clush with another project and causes big trouble. >> Anyways its up to you how to decide... > > Well, we've used it for ages without complaint from users or server > operators, so I don't see the need to change it right now. I'll try to > have a chat with some of the Mavern guys at apachecon EU in a couple of > weeks, and see what they think we should do about the distribution > directory name. Its always a good idea to ask several people before making a decision ;) > > > If anyone does have any thoughts on the poi pom file (eg values we > should add, or current ones to update), do drop an email to poi-dev > saying what we should fix and why :) Well if you do NOT use maven for the build and you also do NOT want to have the overhead of an additional parent POM then you could think about kicking out the scm and issueManagement sections. The url points to the website and everything is there. Having the license in the pom as well is a good decision and should NOT be changed. > > Nick Regards Jörg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGLnOhmPuec2Dcv/8RAgw8AJ9ttCYkWDRh9FyTo/xKRDaEk/tapACeICEb 9+NP9CwZAWs5LHZ1ZTMGBTs= =BnfS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mailing List: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/mail2.html#poi The Apache Jakarta Poi Project: http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/
