On 10/1/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
<snip>
> Dims, Steve and Henri did reply to you with very consistent responses. As I > understood the suggestion, it is the same as Norman uses, or at least > similar: define a local, file-based, repository. Dims, Steve and Henri each > explained why that was a good idea, including Henri's comment to you that > "[The Infrastructure Team] might be against the idea of putting build > dependables on a project's website", and all of them explaining various > security concerns. And you replied to Dims that you liked the idea! :-) > Was there something else from them that you needed? In my reply I also raised a few problems with that idea and proposed a different solution (evolution of that idea) where we didn't need a shared repository but we simply include the per-project jars in the source tree for that project like we do for ant-based projects (simply using a different convention for the lib folder structure). This is how jspf and mime4j currenlty builds and it is working. On repository they didn't reply about this solution. I think this is the best from both world and much more similar to how we do things using ant.
AFAICT the maven build for jsdf and mime4j hits the local filesystem only and not any ASF servers. opinions differ about whether storing artifacts in the repository is a good idea but james does so i see no reasons for infrastructure to object to this arrangement. BTW using minotaur.apache.org in a pom is not recommended. please use an appropriate virtual host (for example people.apache.org). - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
