1 |
On 05/23/2011 09:15 AM, Kasun Gajasinghe wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> On 05/22/2011 05:54 PM, Eric Chatellier wrote: |
4 |
>>> Le 22/05/2011 07:38, Kasun Gajasinghe a écrit : |
5 |
>>>> Hi all, |
6 |
>>>> I'm working on getting Apache Maven in to work by building from |
7 |
>>>> source. Currently, in main tree, Maven is installed using the binary |
8 |
>>>> (dev-java/maven-bin), which is against the Gentoo Java Packaging |
9 |
>>>> Policy. |
10 |
>>>> |
11 |
>>>> Getting Maven in to work by building-from-source is a lengthy process. |
12 |
>>>> We have two main versions to go ahead. The 2.x range with the latest |
13 |
>>>> being v2.2.1, and the 3.x range with the latest being v3.0.3. The |
14 |
>>>> compatibility notes for 2.x and 3.x are at [1]. There's only few |
15 |
>>>> compatibility issues as I've seen. I was thinking to go with 2.x since |
16 |
>>>> in my experience and the area where I was involved in, haven't had any |
17 |
>>>> plans to migrate to Maven 3.x soon. But the overall picture may vary. |
18 |
>>>> |
19 |
>>>> So, I'm asking from the Gentoo's Java community, what's the suitable |
20 |
>>>> version to go with? 2.x or 3.x |
21 |
>>> Hi, i'm a gentoo user and java developper using maven for |
22 |
>>> years. I also known the maven gentoo problem ;) |
23 |
>>> So i'll be happy to help you or test your work. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Thanks Eric. Much appreciate your help. I'm starting out now, and my |
26 |
> objective first goal is to bump all the maven modules. As you probably |
27 |
> know, maven-from-source is implemented in java-overlay though it's not |
28 |
> in a working state. So, have to fix all the bugs in there! :) |
29 |
> I could possibly use help on knowing the issues the current |
30 |
> implementation have for now only if you like that kind of thing! |
31 |
> |
32 |
> |
33 |
>>> |
34 |
>>> For maven 2/3, 3.x is a new achitecture intended to |
35 |
>>> be maven 2 complaint. So, i vote for 3.x. |
36 |
>>> But maybe 3.x is too young... |
37 |
>>> |
38 |
> |
39 |
> Thanks... let's see what others say. See my comment below. |
40 |
> |
41 |
>> |
42 |
>> Eventually 2.x will die while 3.x continues to be supported and so on. I |
43 |
>> would target 3.x and then do 2.x also if it's relative easy to backport. |
44 |
>> If they are largely compatible as you say then targeting 3.x shouldn't |
45 |
>> be a problem knowledge wise. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> True. As they say, the *major* objective of Maven 3 was to decouple |
48 |
> maven core from reporting tools (such as site plugin). So, yes, Maven |
49 |
> 3.x is compatible with 2.x except for the site plugin and few other |
50 |
> plugins mentioned at [2]. We can back-port, but _most_ of the projects |
51 |
> still depend on 2.x because there isn't any major issue with 2.x |
52 |
> except for the slightly slower performance afaik. So, I was afraid |
53 |
> whether going ahead with 3.x makes the real projects can't use |
54 |
> maven-from-source thing effectively. |
55 |
> |
56 |
|
57 |
maven-bin 2.x support continues to work through the binary package? |
58 |
|
59 |
Regards, |
60 |
Petteri |