1 |
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 05/22/2011 05:54 PM, Eric Chatellier wrote: |
3 |
>> Le 22/05/2011 07:38, Kasun Gajasinghe a écrit : |
4 |
>>> Hi all, |
5 |
>>> I'm working on getting Apache Maven in to work by building from |
6 |
>>> source. Currently, in main tree, Maven is installed using the binary |
7 |
>>> (dev-java/maven-bin), which is against the Gentoo Java Packaging |
8 |
>>> Policy. |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> Getting Maven in to work by building-from-source is a lengthy process. |
11 |
>>> We have two main versions to go ahead. The 2.x range with the latest |
12 |
>>> being v2.2.1, and the 3.x range with the latest being v3.0.3. The |
13 |
>>> compatibility notes for 2.x and 3.x are at [1]. There's only few |
14 |
>>> compatibility issues as I've seen. I was thinking to go with 2.x since |
15 |
>>> in my experience and the area where I was involved in, haven't had any |
16 |
>>> plans to migrate to Maven 3.x soon. But the overall picture may vary. |
17 |
>>> |
18 |
>>> So, I'm asking from the Gentoo's Java community, what's the suitable |
19 |
>>> version to go with? 2.x or 3.x |
20 |
>> Hi, i'm a gentoo user and java developper using maven for |
21 |
>> years. I also known the maven gentoo problem ;) |
22 |
>> So i'll be happy to help you or test your work. |
23 |
|
24 |
Thanks Eric. Much appreciate your help. I'm starting out now, and my |
25 |
objective first goal is to bump all the maven modules. As you probably |
26 |
know, maven-from-source is implemented in java-overlay though it's not |
27 |
in a working state. So, have to fix all the bugs in there! :) |
28 |
I could possibly use help on knowing the issues the current |
29 |
implementation have for now only if you like that kind of thing! |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
>> |
33 |
>> For maven 2/3, 3.x is a new achitecture intended to |
34 |
>> be maven 2 complaint. So, i vote for 3.x. |
35 |
>> But maybe 3.x is too young... |
36 |
>> |
37 |
|
38 |
Thanks... let's see what others say. See my comment below. |
39 |
|
40 |
> |
41 |
> Eventually 2.x will die while 3.x continues to be supported and so on. I |
42 |
> would target 3.x and then do 2.x also if it's relative easy to backport. |
43 |
> If they are largely compatible as you say then targeting 3.x shouldn't |
44 |
> be a problem knowledge wise. |
45 |
|
46 |
True. As they say, the *major* objective of Maven 3 was to decouple |
47 |
maven core from reporting tools (such as site plugin). So, yes, Maven |
48 |
3.x is compatible with 2.x except for the site plugin and few other |
49 |
plugins mentioned at [2]. We can back-port, but _most_ of the projects |
50 |
still depend on 2.x because there isn't any major issue with 2.x |
51 |
except for the slightly slower performance afaik. So, I was afraid |
52 |
whether going ahead with 3.x makes the real projects can't use |
53 |
maven-from-source thing effectively. |
54 |
|
55 |
So, I was in the mind supporting 2.x and then upgrade to 3.x when the |
56 |
time comes. Does the site-plugin is actually useful when packaging? |
57 |
Only packagers will know. If that's not matter much, then I'm OK to go |
58 |
with 3.x. |
59 |
|
60 |
[2] https://cwiki.apache.org/MAVEN/maven-3x-plugin-compatibility-matrix.html |
61 |
|
62 |
Thanks, |
63 |
--Kasun |
64 |
|
65 |
-- |
66 |
~~~*******'''''''''''''*******~~~ |
67 |
Kasun Gajasinghe, |
68 |
University of Moratuwa, |
69 |
Sri Lanka. |
70 |
Blog: http://kasunbg.blogspot.com |
71 |
Twitter: http://twitter.com/kasunbg |