On 2. Oct 2018, at 00:02, Marshall Schor <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> part of the issue seems to be that the checksum things are set up to assume 
> the
> artifact follows the Maven naming conventions.  Unfortunately, the uimaj-core
> artifacts name their jars etc without the version part (e.g. uimaj-core, not
> uimaj-core-2.10.3), so the checksums don't find the artifacts...
> 
> Wondering what the best fix is for this...

Very strange because I didn't change the patterns - only the algorithm used
by the Ant checksum target. So if it doesn't work now, it probably didn't work
before? Or the fact they are missing now is due to a change in the ASF parent 
POM.

We can use the checksum-maven-plugin to generate artifact checksums and to 
attach these to the Maven build such that they should be deployed to the 
repository
on release. I have filed another commit doing that under 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-5856.

----

Trying to build uima v2, I'm seeing messages such as these during the build:
 
----
[INFO] --- maven-javadoc-plugin:3.0.1:jar (attach-javadocs) @ uimaj-test-util 
---
[WARNING] Are you sure about the <javadocVersion/> parameter? It seems to be 
1.8.0
----

But I have no idea where they come from. I already tested locally upgrading to 
the maven-javadoc-plugin 3.0.1 
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MJAVADOC-512)
but even with that version, I get the warning. I also have no idea where the
1.8.0 value would be coming from - "mvn help:effective-pom" says that the
"javadocVersion" parameter value is "1.7". Might be still a but in
maven-javadoc-plugin 3.0.1.

----

While we are at it: Maven keeps telling me that we shouldn't use the stanza

  <prerequisites>
    <!-- 2.2.0 is broken when deploying - checksums invalid -->
    <!-- 2.2.1 doesn't work -->
    <maven>3.3.9</maven>
  </prerequisites>

in the parent pom, because that stanza is only relevant for Maven plugin 
modules.
If we want to generally enforce the use of a specific Maven version, we should 
be
using the enforcer plugin instead.

Is there any reason we have that stanza in the UIMA parent pom?

Cheers,

-- Richard

Reply via email to