I have tried a some combinations of repository definitions in pom.xml vs.
settings.xml and found that settings.xml takes precedence over pom.xml, i.e.
the comment at CSC-173 is no issue because we can use default configuration
in pom.xml pointing to fornax repository and those using a company
repository can define other urls in settings.xml (or change in pom.xml, it
is only generated once).

Correct me if I'm wrong.

/Patrik 


Patrik Nordwall wrote:
> 
> We have got an interesting comment in 
> http://www.fornax-platform.org/tracker/browse/CSC-173 CSC-173  that it is
> not a good idea to have the repository definition in the pom files.
> 
> Another opinion:
> http://www.nabble.com/-fornax-repository--missing-equinox-dependency-to14252094s17564.html#a14278216
> 
> Does the definition in the pom takes precedence over definition in
> settings.xml?
> 
> I started this thread to gather more opinions. What do you think?
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Repositories-in-pom-tp14660711s17564p14674441.html
Sent from the Fornax-Platform mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace
_______________________________________________
Fornax-developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fornax-developer

Reply via email to