On 12 Jul 2004 10:07:09 -0400, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 09:23, Dion Gillard wrote: > > > That's my 2c. Does anyone else feel that it's a must have feature for 1.0? > > Putting the sources in the main artifact JAR is not the way to go, > especially if it's made optional. Then you'll end up with a mix bag of > artifacts.
I'm not sure I see the issue. If you are suggesting it should be another 'artifact JAR', I can see how that would be good, with a standard naming convention. But I'm not sure why having a 'mix bag' is an issue. > For releases, I think it would be cool to have the source jar made as > well as part of the standard process. For snapshots I don't know if this > is really worth it. Do you meant the one produced by the dist plugin? > How to make this easy for users? I think this falls in the domain of the > IDE. For example, I don't think it would take much for the Mevenide > folks to add a snippet of code to look for a source archive artifact and > pull it down if the user wishes. We should make the source drops > available but mixing sources with binaries I think is a big no no. I can easily roll it back out of the jar plugin if you like, but since Brett said 'commit away', I'm reluctant to do so. For each L/GPL jar that gets distributed, the license says the source must accompany the binaries. I get the feeling ibiblio is illegally distributing jars like checkstyle because there is no source provided with the binaries, and Maven simply downloads the jar. Having source in the jar alleviates the need to do this for those with that sort of license, similar to ensuring the license is in META-INF. If the Maven team doesn't want this feature, I could simply release it elsewhere if there's a need. -- http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
