On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 11:10, Dion Gillard wrote: > 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.
Joe user downloads one JAR and finds it works somehow for stepping through the source and then Joe user downloads another JAR and find this doesn't work which will illicit all sorts of questions about why this works in some cases and doesn't in others. Multiplicity with respect to this, as it is with all things attempted in Maven, is not a good thing. > > 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. If putting the sources in the JAR is an option and that's there now then I'm -1 on that becoming any sort of standard of distributing sources. > For each L/GPL jar that gets distributed, the license says the source > must accompany the binaries. They don't have to be in the JAR, they have to be available. > 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. The sources have to be available and we do not repackage anything and make a new distribution for which we would have to provide the source. But for most things like checkstyle the source is freely available: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=29721 > 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. The source is available, this is not a problem and if any project sees it as a problem, as I noted when Dalibor Topic complained the last time, we can remove their artifacts from ibiblio but I doubt any project would want that. Or you could just change the deploy plugin to push the source archive up there too and then IDEs or users can pull down what they like. > If the Maven team doesn't want this feature, I could simply release it > elsewhere if there's a need. Source archive available for every artifact: +1 Mixing in the sources with the standard JAR: -1 -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://maven.apache.org happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come and sit softly on your shoulder ... -- Thoreau --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
