1 |
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 05/23/2011 09:15 AM, Kasun Gajasinghe wrote: |
3 |
>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>>> On 05/22/2011 05:54 PM, Eric Chatellier wrote: |
5 |
>>>> Le 22/05/2011 07:38, Kasun Gajasinghe a écrit : |
6 |
>>>>> Hi all, |
7 |
>>>>> I'm working on getting Apache Maven in to work by building from |
8 |
>>>>> source. Currently, in main tree, Maven is installed using the binary |
9 |
>>>>> (dev-java/maven-bin), which is against the Gentoo Java Packaging |
10 |
>>>>> Policy. |
11 |
>>>>> |
12 |
>>>>> Getting Maven in to work by building-from-source is a lengthy process. |
13 |
>>>>> We have two main versions to go ahead. The 2.x range with the latest |
14 |
>>>>> being v2.2.1, and the 3.x range with the latest being v3.0.3. The |
15 |
>>>>> compatibility notes for 2.x and 3.x are at [1]. There's only few |
16 |
>>>>> compatibility issues as I've seen. I was thinking to go with 2.x since |
17 |
>>>>> in my experience and the area where I was involved in, haven't had any |
18 |
>>>>> plans to migrate to Maven 3.x soon. But the overall picture may vary. |
19 |
>>>>> |
20 |
>>>>> So, I'm asking from the Gentoo's Java community, what's the suitable |
21 |
>>>>> version to go with? 2.x or 3.x |
22 |
>>>> Hi, i'm a gentoo user and java developper using maven for |
23 |
>>>> years. I also known the maven gentoo problem ;) |
24 |
>>>> So i'll be happy to help you or test your work. |
25 |
>> |
26 |
>> Thanks Eric. Much appreciate your help. I'm starting out now, and my |
27 |
>> objective first goal is to bump all the maven modules. As you probably |
28 |
>> know, maven-from-source is implemented in java-overlay though it's not |
29 |
>> in a working state. So, have to fix all the bugs in there! :) |
30 |
>> I could possibly use help on knowing the issues the current |
31 |
>> implementation have for now only if you like that kind of thing! |
32 |
>> |
33 |
>> |
34 |
>>>> |
35 |
>>>> For maven 2/3, 3.x is a new achitecture intended to |
36 |
>>>> be maven 2 complaint. So, i vote for 3.x. |
37 |
>>>> But maybe 3.x is too young... |
38 |
>>>> |
39 |
>> |
40 |
>> Thanks... let's see what others say. See my comment below. |
41 |
>> |
42 |
>>> |
43 |
>>> Eventually 2.x will die while 3.x continues to be supported and so on. I |
44 |
>>> would target 3.x and then do 2.x also if it's relative easy to backport. |
45 |
>>> If they are largely compatible as you say then targeting 3.x shouldn't |
46 |
>>> be a problem knowledge wise. |
47 |
>> |
48 |
>> True. As they say, the *major* objective of Maven 3 was to decouple |
49 |
>> maven core from reporting tools (such as site plugin). So, yes, Maven |
50 |
>> 3.x is compatible with 2.x except for the site plugin and few other |
51 |
>> plugins mentioned at [2]. We can back-port, but _most_ of the projects |
52 |
>> still depend on 2.x because there isn't any major issue with 2.x |
53 |
>> except for the slightly slower performance afaik. So, I was afraid |
54 |
>> whether going ahead with 3.x makes the real projects can't use |
55 |
>> maven-from-source thing effectively. |
56 |
>> |
57 |
> |
58 |
> maven-bin 2.x support continues to work through the binary package? |
59 |
|
60 |
Yes, we can keep supporting maven-bin 2.x for maven users. Though the |
61 |
packagers of projects based on maven won't be able to use the support |
62 |
for maven 2.x if we start with 3.x.This project's focus is more |
63 |
towards packagers, right? I think Serkan or people who are more |
64 |
familiar with this can give an exact answer. |
65 |
|
66 |
-- |
67 |
~~~*******'''''''''''''*******~~~ |
68 |
Kasun Gajasinghe, |
69 |
University of Moratuwa, |
70 |
Sri Lanka. |
71 |
Blog: http://kasunbg.blogspot.com |
72 |
Twitter: http://twitter.com/kasunbg |