On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 08:22:14PM +0100, Markus Koschany wrote: > Am 15.02.19 um 15:42 schrieb tony mancill: > [...] > > Any thoughts on whether we should focus on fixing javadoc generation or > > look at other ways to mitigate the FTBFS? > > Like burning all those -doc packages? :) > > In my opinion we could ask Robert Scholte for advice. He is chairman of > Apache Maven and directly involved in fixing this bug. If he doesn't > know.... > > However I think I have found a workaround, and we all love workarounds, > don't we. > > In your initial post you pointed to a related bug report. [1] That made > me think and also read the fine Maven Javadoc documentation. There is an > option called detectJavaApiLink > > https://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-javadoc-plugin/javadoc-mojo.html#detectJavaApiLink > > If I add > > detectJavaApiLink=false to debian/maven.properties in libparanamer-java, > the package builds from source again. > > Maybe we should patch our tools and set this property to false and move > on for now? Hopefully in a few months this will just work again without > changing this option, when maven-javadoc-plugin et al. have been > catching up?
Hi Markus, Very nice find about detectJavaApiLink! I'll try patching the default value in current maven-javadoc-plugin here [1] and kick off as large of a ratt build as I can see about coverage. Assuming that is successful, we could then look into what it would take to schedule a binary NMU all packages that depend on maven-javadoc-plugin. (Or maybe someone on the list has a better idea?) Do we know if there is any downside to disabling this by default? Thanks! tony [1] https://salsa.debian.org/java-team/maven-javadoc-plugin/blob/master/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugins/javadoc/AbstractJavadocMojo.java#L569
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
