Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-java
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-java: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-java@g.o
From: Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o>
Subject: Re: Maven from source - version 2.x or 3.x ?
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 09:38:12 +0300
On 05/23/2011 09:15 AM, Kasun Gajasinghe wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote:
>> On 05/22/2011 05:54 PM, Eric Chatellier wrote:
>>> Le 22/05/2011 07:38, Kasun Gajasinghe a écrit :
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> I'm working on getting Apache Maven in to work by building from
>>>> source. Currently, in main tree, Maven is installed using the binary
>>>> (dev-java/maven-bin), which is against the Gentoo Java Packaging
>>>> Policy.
>>>>
>>>> Getting Maven in to work by building-from-source is a lengthy process.
>>>> We have two main versions to go ahead. The 2.x range with the latest
>>>> being v2.2.1, and the 3.x range with the latest being v3.0.3. The
>>>> compatibility notes for 2.x and 3.x are at [1]. There's only few
>>>> compatibility issues as I've seen. I was thinking to go with 2.x since
>>>> in my experience and the area where I was involved in, haven't had any
>>>> plans to migrate to Maven 3.x soon. But the overall picture may vary.
>>>>
>>>> So, I'm asking from the Gentoo's Java community, what's the suitable
>>>> version to go with? 2.x or 3.x
>>> Hi, i'm a gentoo user and java developper using maven for
>>> years. I also known the maven gentoo problem ;)
>>> So i'll be happy to help you or test your work.
> 
> Thanks Eric. Much appreciate your help. I'm starting out now, and my
> objective first goal is to bump all the maven modules. As you probably
> know, maven-from-source is implemented in java-overlay though it's not
> in a working state. So, have to fix all the bugs in there! :)
> I could possibly use help on knowing the issues the current
> implementation have for now only if you like that kind of thing!
> 
> 
>>>
>>> For maven 2/3, 3.x is a new achitecture intended to
>>> be maven 2 complaint. So, i vote for 3.x.
>>> But maybe 3.x is too young...
>>>
> 
> Thanks... let's see what others say. See my comment below.
> 
>>
>> Eventually 2.x will die while 3.x continues to be supported and so on. I
>> would target 3.x and then do 2.x also if it's relative easy to backport.
>> If they are largely compatible as you say then targeting 3.x shouldn't
>> be a problem knowledge wise.
> 
> True. As they say, the *major* objective of Maven 3 was to decouple
> maven core from reporting tools (such as site plugin). So, yes, Maven
> 3.x is compatible with 2.x except for the site plugin and few other
> plugins mentioned at [2]. We can back-port, but _most_ of the projects
> still depend on 2.x because there isn't any major issue with 2.x
> except for the slightly slower performance afaik. So, I was afraid
> whether going ahead with 3.x makes the real projects can't use
> maven-from-source thing effectively.
> 

maven-bin 2.x support continues to work through the binary package?

Regards,
Petteri

Attachment:
signature.asc (OpenPGP digital signature)
Replies:
Re: Maven from source - version 2.x or 3.x ?
-- Kasun Gajasinghe
References:
Maven from source - version 2.x or 3.x ?
-- Kasun Gajasinghe
Re: Maven from source - version 2.x or 3.x ?
-- Eric Chatellier
Re: Maven from source - version 2.x or 3.x ?
-- Petteri Räty
Re: Maven from source - version 2.x or 3.x ?
-- Kasun Gajasinghe
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-java: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Maven from source - version 2.x or 3.x ?
Next by thread:
Re: Maven from source - version 2.x or 3.x ?
Previous by date:
Re: Maven from source - version 2.x or 3.x ?
Next by date:
Re: Maven from source - version 2.x or 3.x ?


Updated Mar 06, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-java mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.