On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 16:57 -0500, Mike Perham wrote:
> Enter a JIRA issue at http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MEV
>
> I've found that there are a HELL of a lot of problems with POMs. Many of
> them are either minimal with no dependencies or contain EVERY dependency
> without regard to scope. Spring 1.1.5, for instance, is minimal and does not
> declare aopalliance. dom4j 1.6 OTOH is everything and the kitchen sink.
>
> I would suggest that the maven2 team get a little more strict on the quality
> of the POMs they accept - the quality of those POMs directly affects people's
> overall perception of the quality of maven2 itself.
The problem here is like this:
*) Until about a year ago Maven didn't publish the POM along the JAR
which made us loose a lot of valuable metadata. It's publishing this
data by default now and the situation is improving. There's still a
issue that Maven 1 doesn't have the scope information.
*) Almost no projects mark their Maven 1 dependencies with scope. To set
the scope for a Maven 1 dependency use the <properties> on a dependency
like this:
<dependency>
<groupId>foo</groupId>
<artifactId>bar</artifactId>
<version>1.0</version>
<properties>
<scope>test</scope>
</properties>
</dependency>
By including the <scope> property the repository conversion tool will
set the <scope> to test in the Maven 2 pom as well. I just realized that
this is completely missing from our documentation and I'll add that
ASAP.
*) For all the projects on Ibiblio *with* POMs you'll get the "kitchen
sink" style POMs where everything has scope=compile (as that's the
default)
*) For all projects on Ibiblio *without* POMs you'll get the basic and
empty POM.
To try to remedy this situation we have the MEV JIRA project (that you
already mentioned) so we hope that the situation will improve over time.
--
Trygve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
