Jason van Zyl wrote:
Yah, I don't buy it. I don't know anyone who uses RPMs to do anything
with Java.
Nobody who works java does, but the goal is to let people who work with
OSS systems use Java apps the way they work with C++, Perl, python, mono
and ruby code --with one central
On 19 Dec 06, at 5:52 AM 19 Dec 06, Steve Loughran wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Yah, I don't buy it. I don't know anyone who uses RPMs to do
anything with Java.
Nobody who works java does, but the goal is to let people who work
with OSS systems use Java apps the way they work with C++,
committer you are entitled to
svn cp maven trunk into the sandbox as maven-fedora-integration or
something similar and drive this, if you like.
Cheers,
Brett
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands
- as an Apache committer you are entitled to
svn cp maven trunk into the sandbox as maven-fedora-integration or
something similar and drive this, if you like.
Brett,
Thanks - I just wanted to make sure there was consensus on the list
before we started that, else it could be a lot of work
On 12/14/06, Deepak Bhole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is offline behaviour useful? It is just the way Fedora does things
to ensure that everything is traceable. It is to ensure that the entire
application is built ground up from sources. All of the System
installed jars that I am referring to
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 13 Dec 06, at 10:26 AM 13 Dec 06, Carl Trieloff wrote:
I don't see that there is a consistent view yet on this. It would be
nice to get to a conclusion on whether the Maven community would like
to work with the downstream distros teams so that we can provide a
On 14 Dec 06, at 9:46 AM 14 Dec 06, Carl Trieloff wrote:
Suggestion:
Would a good starting point be to maybe be to create a branch where
some guys can work, and then we work item by item with the maven
community. once we get an issue out the way, and agreed by maven
team we merge the
Just to clarify the building from source situation, the real requirement
is that if we were in a concrete bunker somewhere with no connection to
the outside world, and all we had was an installed fedora box + all the
source rpms for fedora, we should be able to rebuild the entire OS.
Note
On 14 Dec 06, at 10:30 AM 14 Dec 06, Rafael Schloming wrote:
Just to clarify the building from source situation, the real
requirement is that if we were in a concrete bunker somewhere with
no connection to the outside world, and all we had was an installed
fedora box + all the source rpms
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 14 Dec 06, at 10:30 AM 14 Dec 06, Rafael Schloming wrote:
Just to clarify the building from source situation, the real
requirement is that if we were in a concrete bunker somewhere with no
connection to the outside world, and all we had was an installed
fedora box +
On 14 Dec 06, at 4:07 PM 14 Dec 06, Rafael Schloming wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 14 Dec 06, at 10:30 AM 14 Dec 06, Rafael Schloming wrote:
Just to clarify the building from source situation, the real
requirement is that if we were in a concrete bunker somewhere
with no connection to
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Yah, I don't buy it. I don't know anyone who uses RPMs to do anything
with Java.
Actually, if you'll recall our conversations at ApacheCon I mentioned
something like that. RPMs make no sense because the ClassLoader can't
use them. They also make no sense because the
I don't see that there is a consistent view yet on this. It would be
nice to get to a conclusion on whether the Maven community would like to
work with the downstream distros teams so that we can provide a
consistent and good experience. Is there any more information that is
needed to get to
Carl Trieloff wrote:
I don't see that there is a consistent view yet on this. It would be
nice to get to a conclusion on whether the Maven community would like
to work with the downstream distros teams so that we can provide a
consistent and good experience. Is there any more information
On 13 Dec 06, at 10:26 AM 13 Dec 06, Carl Trieloff wrote:
I don't see that there is a consistent view yet on this. It would
be nice to get to a conclusion on whether the Maven community would
like to work with the downstream distros teams so that we can
provide a consistent and good
On 14/12/2006, at 2:57 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
- Using an installation layout that is consistent with our current
setup
I think what you are actually asking for is one that is consistent
with our documented setup. I think it's still possible to relocate
the binaries since the only
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 13:18 +1100, Brett Porter wrote:
On 11/12/2006, at 11:37 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I have no problems with an RPM provided it was contained in one
directory like we have now our documentation being applicable.
Something that split up all over the place, or
Hi,
I have read Brett's reply to this message. Just to add some more info to
the points:
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 10:57 -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 13 Dec 06, at 10:26 AM 13 Dec 06, Carl Trieloff wrote:
I don't see that there is a consistent view yet on this. It would
be nice to get
On 13 Dec 06, at 5:57 PM 13 Dec 06, Deepak Bhole wrote:
Hi,
I have read Brett's reply to this message. Just to add some more
info to
the points:
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 10:57 -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 13 Dec 06, at 10:26 AM 13 Dec 06, Carl Trieloff wrote:
I don't see that there is
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 18:30 -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 13 Dec 06, at 5:57 PM 13 Dec 06, Deepak Bhole wrote:
Hi,
I have read Brett's reply to this message. Just to add some more
info to
the points:
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 10:57 -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 13 Dec 06, at
On 13 Dec 06, at 7:15 PM 13 Dec 06, Deepak Bhole wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 18:30 -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 13 Dec 06, at 5:57 PM 13 Dec 06, Deepak Bhole wrote:
Hi,
I have read Brett's reply to this message. Just to add some more
info to
the points:
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 10:57
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Have you ever tried using a cleaning installed Redhat and trying to use
the Java stuff that's installed? In the recent past I spent an hour
trying to figure out why AMQ tests were failing and it was because gjc
was picking stuff up instead of the JDK I installed. Then I
I have not seen any issues with the JPackage Fedora
RPMs, and have been running with them for about 2
months now.
I just followed the instructions here:
http://fedoranews.org/mediawiki/index.php/JPackage_Java_for_FC4
They even let you easily switch between Java
implementation using an
Carl Trieloff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. Get rpm from jpackage. Check if it is set to build natively.
If not,
Build it, run it through spec-gcj-convert (file attached), verify
new spec, rebuild it, make sure it conforms to Fedora guidelines
for everything except the release
I'm an AppFuse person that listens here and I agree wholeheartedly with
Jason. All of the linux variations have a graphical file explorer and some
unzip facility. You just do the following:
- drag the tar.gz to where you're unzipping
- ln -s /usr/local/maven-2.0.4 /usr/local/maven
- set
On 9 Dec 06, at 11:06 AM 9 Dec 06, David Whitehurst wrote:
I'm an AppFuse person that listens here and I agree wholeheartedly
with
Jason. All of the linux variations have a graphical file explorer
and some
unzip facility. You just do the following:
Just for clarification I am not
.
- Original Message -
From: Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Maven and Fedora
On 9 Dec 06, at 11:06 AM 9 Dec 06, David Whitehurst wrote:
I'm an AppFuse person that listens here and I agree
PM
Subject: Re: Maven and Fedora
On 9 Dec 06, at 11:06 AM 9 Dec 06, David Whitehurst wrote:
I'm an AppFuse person that listens here and I agree
wholeheartedly with
Jason. All of the linux variations have a graphical file
explorer and some
unzip facility. You just do the following
On 12/7/06, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Define nice? If it's an installation that is different then something
standard that users typically get then it is a not a good thing. I
can just see the threads now:
I put my global stuff in the /etc/maven/settings.xml and blah blah
blah
In
User vote (non-binding, on first sight):
+1 for an RPM (because as a non-maven-developer I like it that there can
only be one maven version installed). I am tired of telling people how
to install maven and setting their JAVA_HOME etc.
+1 for writing/stabilizing an RPM plugin that builds
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 6 Dec 06, at 11:38 AM 6 Dec 06, Carl Trieloff wrote:
I have spoken with a few committers over IRC, ApacheCon etc about this
so here it comes. Some of us would like to include maven into Fedora
distributions. There are two components to this, one technical
Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
Right. I forgot to mention in my last email that in a good 98% of the
cases the only reason we've ever found out that dojo users install ant
via a package manager is because they are having conflicting library
classpath problems. (related to rhino)
oh, you get those
remember a specific instance, but I'm sure there are some
who would like them. Either way, we need to consider Fedora as a
consumer of Maven and that they know what their users want, which
apparently is Maven bundled with Fedora.
I doubt they have asked but I would be pleasantly surprised
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 6 Dec 06, at 3:02 PM 6 Dec 06, Carl Trieloff wrote:
John Casey wrote:
Let's start with: What are the requirements?
Regards,
John
yes that is good - I would not see the patches set as something to
commit as is but a prototype to see if it could
be done. we now
Jason van Zyl wrote:
I don't remember a specific instance, but I'm sure there are some who
would like them. Either way, we need to consider Fedora as a consumer
of Maven and that they know what their users want, which apparently is
Maven bundled with Fedora.
I doubt they have asked but I
Rafael Schloming wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
I don't remember a specific instance, but I'm sure there are some who
would like them. Either way, we need to consider Fedora as a consumer
of Maven and that they know what their users want, which apparently
is Maven bundled with Fedora.
I
:
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 11:57 -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 6 Dec 06, at 11:38 AM 6 Dec 06, Carl Trieloff wrote:
I have spoken with a few committers over IRC, ApacheCon etc about
this so here it comes. Some of us would like to include maven into
Fedora distributions. There are two
I have spoken with a few committers over IRC, ApacheCon etc about this
so here it comes. Some of us would like to include maven into Fedora
distributions. There are two components to this, one technical and the
other process similar to the Apache incubator process in that you need
a sponsor
On 6 Dec 06, at 11:38 AM 6 Dec 06, Carl Trieloff wrote:
I have spoken with a few committers over IRC, ApacheCon etc about
this so here it comes. Some of us would like to include maven into
Fedora distributions. There are two components to this, one
technical and the other process similar
like to include maven into
Fedora distributions. There are two components to this, one technical
and the other process similar to the Apache incubator process in that
you need a sponsor, need to pass review etc...
To be frank, I'm not so sure this would be a good thing for Maven
users. It's
I personally have never trusted any linux based package manager to
install any java software, maybe that's just me being paranoid..
That being said, I have observed many users referencing having
installed ant via package manager on linux distro in the dojo
users list. As long as the maven devs
like to include maven
into Fedora distributions. There are two components to this, one
technical and the other process similar to the Apache incubator
process in that you need a sponsor, need to pass review etc...
To be frank, I'm not so sure this would be a good thing for Maven
users
:
On 6 Dec 06, at 11:38 AM 6 Dec 06, Carl Trieloff wrote:
I have spoken with a few committers over IRC, ApacheCon etc about
this so here it comes. Some of us would like to include maven
into Fedora distributions. There are two components to this, one
technical and the other process similar
Personally, I'm finding it a little hard to divorce the maven-developer in
me here, and see it from an average Joe perspective...
I think it could be great to have the ability to install Maven from yum,
apt-get, port, emerge, etc. I think many users who are more interested in
developing and
this so here it comes. Some of us would like to include maven into
Fedora distributions. There are two components to this, one
technical and the other process similar to the Apache incubator
process in that you need a sponsor, need to pass review etc...
A few of us have been working
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 11:57 -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 6 Dec 06, at 11:38 AM 6 Dec 06, Carl Trieloff wrote:
I have spoken with a few committers over IRC, ApacheCon etc about
this so here it comes. Some of us would like to include maven into
Fedora distributions. There are two
IRC, ApacheCon etc about
this so here it comes. Some of us would like to include maven into
Fedora distributions. There are two components to this, one
technical and the other process similar to the Apache incubator
process in that you need a sponsor, need to pass review etc
John Casey wrote:
Let's start with: What are the requirements?
Regards,
John
yes that is good - I would not see the patches set as something to
commit as is but a prototype to see if it could
be done. we now think it can - and would do it in a way that works for
maven.
The key parts
WRT `mvn -o`, what's missing in the offline behavior there? Maybe we need to
consider making that more complete.
WRT packaging guidelines, are you talking about this:
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/developers-guide/
or, is there a pertinent sub-section?
Thanks,
John
On 12/6/06, Carl Trieloff
On Wednesday 06 December 2006 14:08, Deepak Bhole wrote:
1. Who is going to maintain this? It seems rather complicated when we
have something that works pretty easily.
The patch's goals are twofold.
1: Ensure full offline mode (the -o switch still allows maven to try and
check for
2: Ensure that projects can build against a single version of a
dependency, rather than multiple.
This bothers me the most. If my project's pom.xml says I depend on foo
version 1.1.3, it better be built and installed with foo version 1.1.3,
not foo version 1.2 or foo version 1.1.5 of foo
Daniel Kulp wrote:
2: Ensure that projects can build against a single version of a
dependency, rather than multiple.
This bothers me the most. If my project's pom.xml says I depend on foo
version 1.1.3, it better be built and installed with foo version 1.1.3,
not foo version 1.2
They were all installed via rpm.
Seems to me that the multiple versions of a resource can be done with rpm.
Correct.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Casey wrote:
2: Ensure that projects can build against a single version of a
dependency, rather than multiple.
This bothers me the most. If my project's pom.xml says I depend on foo
version 1.1.3, it better be built and installed with foo version
1.1.3,
not foo version 1.2 or foo
All of this makes sense, until you consider that the user might start using
the Fedora-provided version of Maven for his own software builds. Then you
have a possibility of letting him produce a very messy build that doesn't
use artifact versions. If the possibility is there, it will be [ab]used.
John Casey wrote:
All of this makes sense, until you consider that the user might start using
the Fedora-provided version of Maven for his own software builds. Then you
have a possibility of letting him produce a very messy build that doesn't
use artifact versions. If the possibility is there,
Rafael Schloming wrote:
John Casey wrote:
All of this makes sense, until you consider that the user might start
using
the Fedora-provided version of Maven for his own software builds. Then
you
have a possibility of letting him produce a very messy build that doesn't
use artifact versions.
the primary concern from the requirements below. These
are phase 1: build and install Maven on Fedora. Phase 2 is use Maven
to build and install other things on Fedora, which is where the other
options and the contention comes in, right?
So, next steps... should we start fleshing this out
first and produces completely unexpected
output then that's a bad thing.
I think this is a key issue we are going to need to work through,
but it also seems like one that isn't the primary concern from the
requirements below. These are phase 1: build and install Maven on
Fedora. Phase 2
On 6 Dec 06, at 3:02 PM 6 Dec 06, Carl Trieloff wrote:
John Casey wrote:
Let's start with: What are the requirements?
Regards,
John
yes that is good - I would not see the patches set as something to
commit as is but a prototype to see if it could
be done. we now think it can - and
there are some who
would like them. Either way, we need to consider Fedora as a consumer
of Maven and that they know what their users want, which apparently
is Maven bundled with Fedora. That shouldn't be discounted. Honestly,
I think it'd do us well to remember that Maven isn't the centre
Jason van Zyl wrote:
I just don't see the value in this for Maven users. Carl what value do
you see as a real benefit to Maven users who work on Redhat?
Jason.
My 2 cents.
I primarily use Linux to develop Java. Here are the steps I use when
installing RHEL 4.0 WS.
1. Install OS.
2.
62 matches
Mail list logo
