If you had a repo manager proxying central this could be fixed in a minute or two...
/Anders On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 22:07, John Singleton <[email protected]> wrote: > Unfortunately, our bcel dependency is a transitive dependency from a jBoss > pom, so I can't easily change that one either. > > For the record, I do not disagree that strict pom validation is a good > idea, > nor do I disagree that it is the responsibility of the artifact producer to > produce a correct pom. I just wanted to point out that introducing > mandatory validation without some sort of escape (e.g. > -Dskip.pom.validation=true) will inconvenience some developers. For now, I > have to choose between hosting a few extra artifacts or remaining with > maven > 2.2.1 while pinging on a few developers to update their artifacts... > > John Singleton > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Wayne Fay <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > bcel/bcel/5.1 and ant-contrib/ant-contrib/1.0b3. Both of these poms > are > > > structurally incorrect: > > > > bcel moved to o.a.bcel and has a 5.2 release with a proper pom file: > > > > > http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/org/apache/bcel/bcel/5.2/bcel-5.2.pom > > > > ant-contrib 1.03b does look to be wrong, you should ping that > > team/list to ask them to push a new build (1.03b is from Jan 2009) > > that has, among other things, a proper pom file (and hopefully a more > > sensible version number) > > > > > original question remains - is this maven behavior intended and, if so, > > can > > > we increase the urgency of fixing bad poms in maven central ( > > repo1.maven.org) > > > so I don't have to host a lot of already-available artifacts just to > fix > > > their metadata? > > > > Fixing bad metadata is generally the responsibility of the dev team > > who is producing the artifacts. > > > > Wayne > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >
