On Nov 16, 2005, at 8:20 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
Of the 14 missing jars, I was able to track down all but 5. I had some
Qs about those 5 -
castor || castor || 0.9.9 || 0.9.9.1 exists. Update pom to use this ?
what is using castor? I think pluto is, anything else?
org.apache.geronimo.fake || m2assembly || 1.0-SNAPSHOT || ???
no idea... obviously it is supposed to be something we control...
activemq || activemq-core-test || 3.2 || can't trace this yet.
I doubt we actually need this, can you figure out what tries to pull it
in?
javacc || javacc || 2.1 || [WARNING] This artifact has been relocated
to javax.sql:jdbc-stdext:2.0.
It seems to me that this must be a mistake somewhere.
xmlbeans || xmlbeans-jsr173-api || 2.0-dev || can't trace this yet.
for the m1 build we are using stax/jars/stax-api-1.0.jar. Again, can
you trace where this requirement comes from? Is there a generic m2
tool to trace where missing dependencies are required?
thanks
david jencks
Suggestions ? Advice ?
Cheers
Prasad
On 11/11/05, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi David,
Certainly, they should be put into the main repository (via an
evangelism issue). For the specs ones, these are probably older than
trunk that has the poms - but I'd expect them to be the same or
similar - so definitely use those. They'll still need to be uploaded.
- Brett
On 11/12/05, David Jencks < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2005, at 11:00 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
>
> > I'm done creating poms for the 17 modules in the attached text
file.
> >
> > I was able to get some jars (same version and all) from the M1
> > repository. I need to track down the other jars.
> >
> > Next I need to figure out how to create a patch from the
repository
> > jars. TortoiseSVN doesn't seem to help me there. Any tips here
would
> > be appreciated.
> >
> > Should I create 1 JIRA for all these 17 modules or should each
module
> > have it's own JIRA ?
> >
> > Cheers
> > Prasad
> >
> >
> >
> I'm worried that duplicate work is happening. The geronimo-specs
> already have an m2 build so I would think they all have valid m2
poms.
> I believe jeff genender has valid activemq poms from his work with
> wadi.
>
> I certainly don't know what should happen with these poms now that
they
> exist. I don't think keeping them private to geronimo is likely to
be
> the best practice. Should we open one issue/pom in maven
evangelism?
> Jason? Brett?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
