On 13/08/07, Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Karl Pauls wrote: > > > > I'm not sure I really like the idea that we create all those artifacts > > of other projects. I was assuming that we would only provide the > > wrapper pom's as a starting point for the projects to ultimately make > > their stuff available as bundles by themselves. > > > > It might just be me so fell free to ignore this if nobody else has a > > strange felling about providing and maintaining all those artifacts... > > > Actually, I'm not sure if we should provide these wrappers, either. But > if we provide the poms we should provide the binary artifacts as well. > It would be imho a bad idea to release a pom and everyone else is then > able to download this pom and build its own binary. Now, we *could* go > down the road of providing maven archetypes instead, so people can build > their own wrapper pom out of our archetype. But I'm not sure if it's > really worth going this way.
FYI, with the FELIX-308 patch and my changes to Pax-Construct it should be really easy to generate wrappers for standard libs :) In addition, if we provide these wrappers I think we should open the > next door and provide an obr as well :) > > So, I think either we go the full way (pom+bin+obr) or we leave the > wrapper bundles to others and remove commons altogether. Personally, I'm > fine with both alternatives. > > Carsten > > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Cheers, Stuart
