On 4/2/14, 2:50, MacPorts wrote: […] > maven seems to be using both strategies 1(b) and 2, and it should decide > which of these strategies it wants to follow. I think it wants to follow > the 2nd strategy, since the maven port is replaced by the maven1 port. So > shouldn't maven3 be updated to a newer version (#42737) and maven-devel > replaced by maven3? See also #42114.
Yes, this is the way forward in general. The subtlety was that maven-3.1.x changed the API points it exports to be used by other tools in a way that is incompatible with maven-3.0.x, so previous consumers of the maven3 port were broken if I we had updated maven3 to point to maven-3.1.x. Enough time has passed, that most of these consumers of maven3 (or at least the ones that I use), now work with both the maven-3.0.x and maven-3.1.x API. Two ways forward: 1) maven3 goes to maven-3.1.x. MacPorts no longer offers a maven-3.0.x installation 2) A new port 'maven31' gets introduced for maven-3.1.x; We rename 'maven3' as 'maven30' which offers maven-3.0.x. Possibly we use 'maven3' as synonym for 'maven31'. In any event, maven-devel should be retired. -- "A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare to it now." _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
