Ahh yes. It isn't meant for software development. It is the source you can debug through. I think of this as the "real" source. Your terminology threw me for a loop.
Software you development from is usually denoted as a trunk or branch that you check out from source control. I find it unusual to download the source from a maven repository, unpack it and start modifying it. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Winnebeck [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 4:50 PM > To: Maven Users List > Subject: Re: Deployment of REAL source and single file artifacts > > Well, you can't unpack that jar then run mvn, because there's no > pom.xml in > the root. I think there is a way to get the POM in there but it goes > into > META-INF. It also never seems to include files like README, COPYING, > NOTICE, > etc. The sources jar also doesn't have my layout with src/main/java > etc. You > can't compile it. You can't run Maven with it. It doesn't include > copyright or > license files or even Apache's own NOTICE files. You can't rebuild the > binary > with it (L/GPL compliance). You can't run the unit tests with it. > > So in pretty much every way I can think of, it doesn't meet the > criteria of > proper source code. It's a source reference jar. Wonderfully > appropriate for > use as reference in your favorite IDE. Completely inappropriate for > software > development. > > Actually when I saw Maven's repo I was very pleased because at first I > thought > it had solved the GPL issue like Debian did where you get a src-deb. > But it > didn't. The -sources.jar doesn't meet the requirements of the GPL to > distribute that. So technically it seems to me that the typical project > in > maven central repository is not compliant with licenses like L/GPL > because you > aren't given an opportunity to download source nor a written notice to > obtain > the source that is capable of producing the binary. In this sense Maven > totally missed a huge opportunity to assist people in actual, proper > L/GPL > compliance where you can use maven-dependency-plugin to include > dependency > source. Now it is not legitimately practical to deliver a self- > contained > program that a user can run using Maven alone. > > Since I'm actually wanting to distribute source that I intend people to > open > and modify, I need an archive that has that. Anders's suggestion > achieved that > (based on example from Apache). > > Jason > > On 9/28/2011 4:35 PM, Thiessen, Todd (Todd) wrote: > > It's not the sources? Then what is it? It's the actual source for > any release that I have ever done ;-). How do you define REAL source? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
