On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> wrote: > Bertrand Delacretaz wrote >> >> Not having d) is a serious problem IMO, as it means bypassing >> dependency resolution, snapshot checks etc. completely. This leads to >> subtle problems at build time, which are easy to overlook in a large >> multi-module build. > Yes and no :) We already have an additional snapshot check and as soon > as you're not using snapshots you're fine. But I agree with snapshots we > have a problem - and this happens already today from time to time where > a snapshot project is built after the launchpad - and therefore the > launchpad uses an old version/snapshot. > >> >> IIUC it's not possible to define everything in the pom? > > It depends :) we need additional metadata like the start level - this > can't be specified together with the dependency itself. However if you > specify the dependency in the dependency section and the metadata in the > plugin configuration, this would be possible. > >> >> If we need an external xml file as is now, could we just define the >> bundle versions in the pom, and use the xml file only for additional >> info? >> >> What's in the pom would act like the dependencyManagement section in a >> parent pom, and the xml file would point to bundles but not mention >> their version, and can include any useful additional information. >> > That's of course possible - but you have to keep information in two > files in sync - the same would be with the solution from above, where > you have to sync to different locations in the pom - I want to define an > included bundle with all information only once and not twice and have to > keep everything in sync. > > But we could ask the Maven people if it would be possible to inject > dependencies by a plugin and then we could use our separate file and > everything would be fine :)
Asked... but I'm not holding my breath :) > > Regards > Carsten > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > [email protected] >
