On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
IMHO this is a maven issue: it should really mark any poms it creates and then download replacements once on line again > 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...). why not just use an ant script for offline builds? > >> 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 :-( no, you're right - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
