On Nov 16, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
castor 0.9.9:
Maybe Blevins can answer this. It's in the pom.xml of the
m2assembly project. This pom.xml is actually a compilation of all
our project.xmls. But our project.xml has castor listed as 0.9.5.3 .
Castor 0.9.5.3 will be fine. I though my old wsdl code in the
webservices module was the only one using it so I took the liberty of
upgrading the version to 0.9.9 as its more recent. I'm cool with
whatever version.
activemq-core-test:
javacc:
xmlbeans-jsr173-api:
The above 3 are seen in the log generatd by the mvn -U command.
They are not found in either the pom.xml or in any of our
project.xmls.
(http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200511.mbox/%
[EMAIL PROTECTED] )
Run the m2assembly build again and see if they are still required.
On 11/16/05, David H. DeWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Pluto's
dependency is currently listed as:
0.9.5.3
I think 0.9.9 is from something else.
David
On 11/16/05, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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 worriedthat duplicate work is happening. The geronimo-specs
> >> > already have an m2 build so I wouldthink 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
> >> >
> >> >
>
>
