I've rolled the code back out. If any users request this functionality in the future, I'll host the code elsewhere.
In the meantime someone else can do the work to create a source archive. On 12 Jul 2004 11:36:40 -0400, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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] > > -- http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
