Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The funny thing is that all of this thread is about a "stupid" pom that
>> even my father could write as is if I explain him the pom
>> semantic+syntax and I tell him to describe junit-3.8.1.jar. This is what
>> scare me: the fact that we don't have a clear way to rewrite this
>> f***ing xml from scratch and release jSPF-0.9.7.
under US copyright law, only the expression and not the facts would
have been copyrightable. if it were me, i would have simply created a
clean room implementation and been done with it.
or just deleted the pom altogether
My main concern is being diligent in not creating further problems to
maven users, so I would like to avoid the creation of metadata different
from the one published in central.
This mean that I would not like to create a new junit.pom with the same
groupId/artifactId but with different data (in this very specific case
the pom we can create from scratch is almost identical to the original
one so we could even take this way).
Also, removing the pom means that maven tries to download it but if it
is disconnected or it is ran in offline mode then it will create an
"empty" pom including only the artifactId/groupId/version stuff. Again
this would be different but for this very specific case (junit.pom) it
would work.
In both case the risk is that we place a different junit.pom: if some
other m2 based project used by our users depends on license data,
description or other stuff declared in the junit.pom we are likely to
break their build.
Another "hack" could be renaming junit-3.8.1.jar to myjunit-3.8.1.jar or
junit-3.8.1-custom.jar, declare our dependency on that specific jar and
declare a dependency exclusion for every other depedency depending on
junit. This would place a custom artifact in the build process/local
repository but would not break other builds. (something tells me we
already made this analysis for jsieve, before you found the alternative
solution).
Maybe we should ask to maven lists what is better to do (IIRC I already
asked this in past, receiving no answers...).
You may have noticed that we only get 2 +1 ;-)
So I'd like to know what exactly we have to do to get the 3rd +1, either
by you or by someone of the other PMC members!
i count +1s from yourself danny and norman: that should be sufficient
- robert
I think Danny voted +0, the "thank goodness one +1!" was a reply to my
+1 and not a vote, I guess :-(
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
