Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Aaron Mulder wrote: On 7/11/06, Donald Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in build uses Maven 2 and depends on the v4 POMs to load the Geronimo dependencies correctly OK, perhaps I should try to do the same thing that's being done there. I'll check it out. If you discover some kind of magic to get this to work, I would be interested in hearing about it. Good luck! Regards, Alan
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Ok. But Aaron's proposal of copying the jars into an m2 repo would not also help, right? Regards, Alan Donald Woods wrote: The Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in build uses Maven 2 and depends on the v4 POMs to load the Geronimo dependencies correctly If you try to build the Plug-in using legacy Maven 1 repos, it will always fail. Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Aaron Mulder wrote: Since we don't necessarily plan on converting Geronimo 1.1.x to Maven 2, can we post the 1.1 JARs in a Maven 2 repo somewhere, with a structure corresponding to the new 1.2/Maven 2 group IDs (o.a.g.*) but no POMs? That would help with building plugins using Maven 2 against the 1.1 JARs (such as kernel, system, etc.). At least if you put in an explicit dependency in your plugin POM it should be able to pull the JARs for you. (And of course they're only needed at compile time since they'll be pulled in via parent module dependencies at runtime.) If no one has any better idea, maybe I'll post them on my people.apache.org for now. But if we can agree to post them to the Maven 2 repo at iBiblio that would be great. Maven 1 repos can be used from Maven 2. Why would we need to post maven 1 jars into a maven 2 repository? Regards, Alan
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Aaron Mulder wrote: On 7/11/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd recommend that projects using m2 wait for G 1.2, which will hopefully be sooner rather than later. Too late. For example, the Quartz plugin (already available on the plugin repo) uses G 1.1 and Maven 2. I've been copying JARs around by hand, which is annoying, and why I want to solve this. There are more people getting involved in developing plugins, and it's hard to recommend Maven 1 and hard to recommend file copying (and *extra* hard to recommend waiting for Geronimo 1.2, given the current velocity). You shouldn't need to hand copy M1 jars into an M2 repository. If the repository declaration is correctly set up, Maven 2 will use the M1 jars in an M1 repository. If a project is using m2 and can't wait for G 1.2, then it should setup a legacy repo and use the m1 artifacts. OK, that's fine, but should it use the groupId "geronimo" or "org.apache.geronimo.modules" when referring to, e.g., geronimo-kernel? The groupId geronimo refers to the m1 jars and org.apache.geronimo.modules will refer to the m2 jars. Regards, Alan
Re: Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
On 7/11/06, Donald Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in build uses Maven 2 and depends on the v4 POMs to load the Geronimo dependencies correctly OK, perhaps I should try to do the same thing that's being done there. I'll check it out. Thanks, Aaron If you try to build the Plug-in using legacy Maven 1 repos, it will always fail. Alan D. Cabrera wrote: > Aaron Mulder wrote: > >> Since we don't necessarily plan on converting Geronimo 1.1.x to Maven >> 2, can we post the 1.1 JARs in a Maven 2 repo somewhere, with a >> structure corresponding to the new 1.2/Maven 2 group IDs (o.a.g.*) but >> no POMs? >> >> That would help with building plugins using Maven 2 against the 1.1 >> JARs (such as kernel, system, etc.). At least if you put in an >> explicit dependency in your plugin POM it should be able to pull the >> JARs for you. (And of course they're only needed at compile time >> since they'll be pulled in via parent module dependencies at runtime.) >> >> If no one has any better idea, maybe I'll post them on my >> people.apache.org for now. But if we can agree to post them to the >> Maven 2 repo at iBiblio that would be great. > > Maven 1 repos can be used from Maven 2. Why would we need to post maven > 1 jars into a maven 2 repository? > > > Regards, > Alan > > > >
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
The Geronimo Eclipse Plug-in build uses Maven 2 and depends on the v4 POMs to load the Geronimo dependencies correctly If you try to build the Plug-in using legacy Maven 1 repos, it will always fail. Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Aaron Mulder wrote: Since we don't necessarily plan on converting Geronimo 1.1.x to Maven 2, can we post the 1.1 JARs in a Maven 2 repo somewhere, with a structure corresponding to the new 1.2/Maven 2 group IDs (o.a.g.*) but no POMs? That would help with building plugins using Maven 2 against the 1.1 JARs (such as kernel, system, etc.). At least if you put in an explicit dependency in your plugin POM it should be able to pull the JARs for you. (And of course they're only needed at compile time since they'll be pulled in via parent module dependencies at runtime.) If no one has any better idea, maybe I'll post them on my people.apache.org for now. But if we can agree to post them to the Maven 2 repo at iBiblio that would be great. Maven 1 repos can be used from Maven 2. Why would we need to post maven 1 jars into a maven 2 repository? Regards, Alan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
OK. On 7/11/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: These appear to be the artifacts built with m1, which I'd expect to find here. I meant that I would not expect to see artifacts built w/ m2 here (under http://www.ibiblio.org/maven anywhere) or see the m1 artifacts moved to http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/org.apache.geronimo.modules/jars/ The only time I would expect to see stuff under http:// www.ibiblio.org/maven/org.apache.geronimo.modules/jars/ or http:// www.ibiblio.org/maven/org.apache.geronimo/jars/ would be if our m2 build published to that repository... and since we won't have m2 build until 1.2 I'm a tad confused myself why this path exists in central for 1.0 jars. --jason
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
IMO it would be very confusing to deploy these artifacts anywhere, or expect people to install them by hand with a different groupId. Copy bad, check. Never want to see them deployed anywhere, I'm confused -- they are deployed to http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/geronimo/jars/ already. These appear to be the artifacts built with m1, which I'd expect to find here. I meant that I would not expect to see artifacts built w/ m2 here (under http://www.ibiblio.org/maven anywhere) or see the m1 artifacts moved to http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/org.apache.geronimo.modules/jars/ The only time I would expect to see stuff under http:// www.ibiblio.org/maven/org.apache.geronimo.modules/jars/ or http:// www.ibiblio.org/maven/org.apache.geronimo/jars/ would be if our m2 build published to that repository... and since we won't have m2 build until 1.2 I'm a tad confused myself why this path exists in central for 1.0 jars. --jason
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
On 7/11/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I agree it should use "geronimo", since that is the groupId used for the bulk of the m1 build. OK. IMO it would be very confusing to deploy these artifacts anywhere, or expect people to install them by hand with a different groupId. Copy bad, check. Never want to see them deployed anywhere, I'm confused -- they are deployed to http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/geronimo/jars/ already. Thanks, Aaron On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:39 PM, David Jencks wrote: > > On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote: > >> On 7/11/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I'd recommend that projects using m2 wait for G 1.2, which will >>> hopefully be sooner rather than later. >> >> Too late. For example, the Quartz plugin (already available on the >> plugin repo) uses G 1.1 and Maven 2. I've been copying JARs >> around by >> hand, which is annoying, and why I want to solve this. There are >> more >> people getting involved in developing plugins, and it's hard to >> recommend Maven 1 and hard to recommend file copying (and *extra* >> hard >> to recommend waiting for Geronimo 1.2, given the current velocity). >> >>> If a project is using m2 and can't wait for G 1.2, then it should >>> setup a legacy repo and use the m1 artifacts. >> >> OK, that's fine, but should it use the groupId "geronimo" or >> "org.apache.geronimo.modules" when referring to, e.g., >> geronimo-kernel? > > I think it should use "geronimo" I think otherwise we will get > into trouble later on when transitive dependencies become > available. If we clearly distinguish real m2 jars from m1 built > jars accessed through m2 I think we will have fewer upgrade problems. > > david jencks >> >> Thanks, >>Aaron >> >>> On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: >>> >>> > On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >> I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1 >>> >> and M2 >>> >> jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different. >>> IIUC, we >>> >> really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo. >>> > >>> > So are you taking the position that we should not support Maven 2 >>> > builds with dependencies on Geronimo 1.1, or that we should >>> support >>> > Maven 2 builds with dependencies on 1.1 but only if they use the >>> > "Maven 1 Group ID" for Geronimo and then change the Group ID >>> when they >>> > update to Geronimo 1.2? >>> > >>> > My position is that if someone is using Maven 2 with >>> dependencies on >>> > Geronimo, they should use the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Geronimo, >>> > regardless of which version of Geronimo they're depending on. >>> > >>> > Or, perhaps you're saying that we should keep the JARs in a >>> Maven 1 >>> > repo but put them in there twice, in one place for the "Maven 1 >>> Group >>> > ID" (for Maven 1 clients) and in a different place for the >>> "Maven 2 >>> > Group ID" for Maven 2 clients (who need to point their build to a >>> > Maven 1 repo but from what you've said that will work)? >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Aaron >>> >>> >
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
I agree it should use "geronimo", since that is the groupId used for the bulk of the m1 build. IMO it would be very confusing to deploy these artifacts anywhere, or expect people to install them by hand with a different groupId. --jason On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:39 PM, David Jencks wrote: On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote: On 7/11/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd recommend that projects using m2 wait for G 1.2, which will hopefully be sooner rather than later. Too late. For example, the Quartz plugin (already available on the plugin repo) uses G 1.1 and Maven 2. I've been copying JARs around by hand, which is annoying, and why I want to solve this. There are more people getting involved in developing plugins, and it's hard to recommend Maven 1 and hard to recommend file copying (and *extra* hard to recommend waiting for Geronimo 1.2, given the current velocity). If a project is using m2 and can't wait for G 1.2, then it should setup a legacy repo and use the m1 artifacts. OK, that's fine, but should it use the groupId "geronimo" or "org.apache.geronimo.modules" when referring to, e.g., geronimo-kernel? I think it should use "geronimo" I think otherwise we will get into trouble later on when transitive dependencies become available. If we clearly distinguish real m2 jars from m1 built jars accessed through m2 I think we will have fewer upgrade problems. david jencks Thanks, Aaron On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: > On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1 >> and M2 >> jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different. IIUC, we >> really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo. > > So are you taking the position that we should not support Maven 2 > builds with dependencies on Geronimo 1.1, or that we should support > Maven 2 builds with dependencies on 1.1 but only if they use the > "Maven 1 Group ID" for Geronimo and then change the Group ID when they > update to Geronimo 1.2? > > My position is that if someone is using Maven 2 with dependencies on > Geronimo, they should use the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Geronimo, > regardless of which version of Geronimo they're depending on. > > Or, perhaps you're saying that we should keep the JARs in a Maven 1 > repo but put them in there twice, in one place for the "Maven 1 Group > ID" (for Maven 1 clients) and in a different place for the "Maven 2 > Group ID" for Maven 2 clients (who need to point their build to a > Maven 1 repo but from what you've said that will work)? > > Thanks, > Aaron
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
On 7/11/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think it should use "geronimo" I think otherwise we will get into trouble later on when transitive dependencies become available. If we clearly distinguish real m2 jars from m1 built jars accessed through m2 I think we will have fewer upgrade problems. I'm OK with this if that's what most people prefer, but I hope everyone on the thread will chip in with their preferred group ID. However, I don't see what the problem is that you're referring to. Let's say you have a project using M1-built Geronimo 1.1 JARs, and you later change your project to use the M1-built Geronimo 1.1.1 JARs and then still later the M2-built Geronimo 1.2 JARs. On that last step, your build will bring down POMs and some transitive dependencies in addition to the JARs explicitly listed. What's the problem and where does it happen? Thanks, Aaron >> On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: >> >> > On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1 >> >> and M2 >> >> jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different. >> IIUC, we >> >> really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo. >> > >> > So are you taking the position that we should not support Maven 2 >> > builds with dependencies on Geronimo 1.1, or that we should support >> > Maven 2 builds with dependencies on 1.1 but only if they use the >> > "Maven 1 Group ID" for Geronimo and then change the Group ID >> when they >> > update to Geronimo 1.2? >> > >> > My position is that if someone is using Maven 2 with >> dependencies on >> > Geronimo, they should use the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Geronimo, >> > regardless of which version of Geronimo they're depending on. >> > >> > Or, perhaps you're saying that we should keep the JARs in a Maven 1 >> > repo but put them in there twice, in one place for the "Maven 1 >> Group >> > ID" (for Maven 1 clients) and in a different place for the "Maven 2 >> > Group ID" for Maven 2 clients (who need to point their build to a >> > Maven 1 repo but from what you've said that will work)? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Aaron >> >>
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote: On 7/11/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd recommend that projects using m2 wait for G 1.2, which will hopefully be sooner rather than later. Too late. For example, the Quartz plugin (already available on the plugin repo) uses G 1.1 and Maven 2. I've been copying JARs around by hand, which is annoying, and why I want to solve this. There are more people getting involved in developing plugins, and it's hard to recommend Maven 1 and hard to recommend file copying (and *extra* hard to recommend waiting for Geronimo 1.2, given the current velocity). If a project is using m2 and can't wait for G 1.2, then it should setup a legacy repo and use the m1 artifacts. OK, that's fine, but should it use the groupId "geronimo" or "org.apache.geronimo.modules" when referring to, e.g., geronimo-kernel? I think it should use "geronimo" I think otherwise we will get into trouble later on when transitive dependencies become available. If we clearly distinguish real m2 jars from m1 built jars accessed through m2 I think we will have fewer upgrade problems. david jencks Thanks, Aaron On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: > On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1 >> and M2 >> jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different. IIUC, we >> really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo. > > So are you taking the position that we should not support Maven 2 > builds with dependencies on Geronimo 1.1, or that we should support > Maven 2 builds with dependencies on 1.1 but only if they use the > "Maven 1 Group ID" for Geronimo and then change the Group ID when they > update to Geronimo 1.2? > > My position is that if someone is using Maven 2 with dependencies on > Geronimo, they should use the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Geronimo, > regardless of which version of Geronimo they're depending on. > > Or, perhaps you're saying that we should keep the JARs in a Maven 1 > repo but put them in there twice, in one place for the "Maven 1 Group > ID" (for Maven 1 clients) and in a different place for the "Maven 2 > Group ID" for Maven 2 clients (who need to point their build to a > Maven 1 repo but from what you've said that will work)? > > Thanks, > Aaron
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
On 7/11/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd recommend that projects using m2 wait for G 1.2, which will hopefully be sooner rather than later. Too late. For example, the Quartz plugin (already available on the plugin repo) uses G 1.1 and Maven 2. I've been copying JARs around by hand, which is annoying, and why I want to solve this. There are more people getting involved in developing plugins, and it's hard to recommend Maven 1 and hard to recommend file copying (and *extra* hard to recommend waiting for Geronimo 1.2, given the current velocity). If a project is using m2 and can't wait for G 1.2, then it should setup a legacy repo and use the m1 artifacts. OK, that's fine, but should it use the groupId "geronimo" or "org.apache.geronimo.modules" when referring to, e.g., geronimo-kernel? Thanks, Aaron On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: > On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1 >> and M2 >> jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different. IIUC, we >> really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo. > > So are you taking the position that we should not support Maven 2 > builds with dependencies on Geronimo 1.1, or that we should support > Maven 2 builds with dependencies on 1.1 but only if they use the > "Maven 1 Group ID" for Geronimo and then change the Group ID when they > update to Geronimo 1.2? > > My position is that if someone is using Maven 2 with dependencies on > Geronimo, they should use the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Geronimo, > regardless of which version of Geronimo they're depending on. > > Or, perhaps you're saying that we should keep the JARs in a Maven 1 > repo but put them in there twice, in one place for the "Maven 1 Group > ID" (for Maven 1 clients) and in a different place for the "Maven 2 > Group ID" for Maven 2 clients (who need to point their build to a > Maven 1 repo but from what you've said that will work)? > > Thanks, > Aaron
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
I'd recommend that projects using m2 wait for G 1.2, which will hopefully be sooner rather than later. I don't think it is a good idea for m1 projects to publish to m2 repositories (unless the Maven team comes up with a supported plugin to do so). If a project is using m2 and can't wait for G 1.2, then it should setup a legacy repo and use the m1 artifacts. --jason On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1 and M2 jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different. IIUC, we really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo. So are you taking the position that we should not support Maven 2 builds with dependencies on Geronimo 1.1, or that we should support Maven 2 builds with dependencies on 1.1 but only if they use the "Maven 1 Group ID" for Geronimo and then change the Group ID when they update to Geronimo 1.2? My position is that if someone is using Maven 2 with dependencies on Geronimo, they should use the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Geronimo, regardless of which version of Geronimo they're depending on. Or, perhaps you're saying that we should keep the JARs in a Maven 1 repo but put them in there twice, in one place for the "Maven 1 Group ID" (for Maven 1 clients) and in a different place for the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Maven 2 clients (who need to point their build to a Maven 1 repo but from what you've said that will work)? Thanks, Aaron
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1 and M2 jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different. IIUC, we really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo. So are you taking the position that we should not support Maven 2 builds with dependencies on Geronimo 1.1, or that we should support Maven 2 builds with dependencies on 1.1 but only if they use the "Maven 1 Group ID" for Geronimo and then change the Group ID when they update to Geronimo 1.2? My position is that if someone is using Maven 2 with dependencies on Geronimo, they should use the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Geronimo, regardless of which version of Geronimo they're depending on. Or, perhaps you're saying that we should keep the JARs in a Maven 1 repo but put them in there twice, in one place for the "Maven 1 Group ID" (for Maven 1 clients) and in a different place for the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Maven 2 clients (who need to point their build to a Maven 1 repo but from what you've said that will work)? Thanks, Aaron
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Aaron Mulder wrote: On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maven 1 repos can be used from Maven 2. I didn't know that. Why would we need to post maven 1 jars into a maven 2 repository? Well, if you're creating a Maven 2 project now, and you use the group ID "geronimo", you know this is going to have to change as soon as 1.2 is released. It might be nice to be able to go ahead and use the new Geronimo 1.2/Maven 2 group IDs like "org.apache.geronimo.modules" for 1.1 as that would stay valid for 1.2 and beyond. So if we put the 1.1 JARs in a Maven 2 repo with the group ID "org.apache.geronimo.modules" then any Geronimo-using POMs written today could be forward-compatible. I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1 and M2 jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different. IIUC, we really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo. Regards, Alan
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
On Jul 10, 2006, at 3:10 PM, David Jencks wrote: I sure hope we manage to change the groupIds to org.apache.geronimo before anything gets released. I think that this should be done when we are ready to reorganize the 1.2 tree for m2... and probably not before. --jason
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
On Jul 10, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote: On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maven 1 repos can be used from Maven 2. I didn't know that. Why would we need to post maven 1 jars into a maven 2 repository? Well, if you're creating a Maven 2 project now, and you use the group ID "geronimo", you know this is going to have to change as soon as 1.2 is released. It might be nice to be able to go ahead and use the new Geronimo 1.2/Maven 2 group IDs like "org.apache.geronimo.modules" for 1.1 as that would stay valid for 1.2 and beyond. So if we put the 1.1 JARs in a Maven 2 repo with the group ID "org.apache.geronimo.modules" then any Geronimo-using POMs written today could be forward-compatible. What do you think? I sure hope we manage to change the groupIds to org.apache.geronimo before anything gets released. thanks david jencks Thanks, Aaron
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maven 1 repos can be used from Maven 2. I didn't know that. Why would we need to post maven 1 jars into a maven 2 repository? Well, if you're creating a Maven 2 project now, and you use the group ID "geronimo", you know this is going to have to change as soon as 1.2 is released. It might be nice to be able to go ahead and use the new Geronimo 1.2/Maven 2 group IDs like "org.apache.geronimo.modules" for 1.1 as that would stay valid for 1.2 and beyond. So if we put the 1.1 JARs in a Maven 2 repo with the group ID "org.apache.geronimo.modules" then any Geronimo-using POMs written today could be forward-compatible. What do you think? Thanks, Aaron
Re: Geronimo 1.1 JARs in Maven 2 Repo
Aaron Mulder wrote: Since we don't necessarily plan on converting Geronimo 1.1.x to Maven 2, can we post the 1.1 JARs in a Maven 2 repo somewhere, with a structure corresponding to the new 1.2/Maven 2 group IDs (o.a.g.*) but no POMs? That would help with building plugins using Maven 2 against the 1.1 JARs (such as kernel, system, etc.). At least if you put in an explicit dependency in your plugin POM it should be able to pull the JARs for you. (And of course they're only needed at compile time since they'll be pulled in via parent module dependencies at runtime.) If no one has any better idea, maybe I'll post them on my people.apache.org for now. But if we can agree to post them to the Maven 2 repo at iBiblio that would be great. Maven 1 repos can be used from Maven 2. Why would we need to post maven 1 jars into a maven 2 repository? Regards, Alan
