Alexander, thank you for moving forward with this and come to provide a patch
I am generally +1 with the patch, but I left some comment https://github.com/apache/maven-shade-plugin/pull/95 let's follow up on the PR Enrico Il giorno ven 21 mag 2021 alle ore 11:41 Alexander Kriegisch <[email protected]> ha scritto: > > Just so as to wrap it up here, in case anyone is interested in the topic > as such instead on the meta discussion that ensued before: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MSHADE-391 > https://github.com/apache/maven-shade-plugin/pull/95 > > -- > Alexander Kriegisch > https://scrum-master.de > > > Alexander Kriegisch schrieb am 16.05.2021 09:41 (GMT +07:00): > > > When running Maven Shade with relocation, it works nicely. When > > comparing JARs before and after relocation, I was surprised to see > > that Shade not just modifies the relocated classes and classes > > referencing them, but also a bunch of IMO completely unrelated > > classes. In my case I am transforming an uber JAR containing ASM, and > > I selectively relocate the ASM classes, intending to leave all others > > untouched. I know that ASM classes are referred to by some of the > > other classes, but by no means as many as are being modified. The byte > > code is slightly different, probably still does the same thing, but it > > makes comparisons and sanity checks or automatic verification steps > > harder than necessary. BTW, the same Shade execution also relocates > > the sources and really only changes source files referencing ASM, just > > like I would have expected. > > > > Looking forward to your insights > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
