Well my experience in building a zip *as a dependency* feels like it's hackish. For example, I create a "pom" packaging type and then configure the assembly plugin for the "package" phase. Okay, but I say this is hackish because it's not straight forward, and the zip is a second artifact (the pom is first) for installation. This pattern kind of smells to me and makes me think an official "zip" type really is needed. Having such a type can take away all this boilerplate.
Cheers, Paul On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Kristian Rosenvold < kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ? > > Kristian > > > > 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>: > > Recently I needed to create zip artifacts for overlays into WAR. Maven > > doesn't have support for "zip" packaging type projects, but MNG-1683 > wants > > to introduce it. > > > > I am curious why this issue has been ignored. Is it just a lack of time > or > > interest? Or is there a philosophical issue behind the delay? I can't see > > much difference between the zip lifecycle and jar lifecycle except there > is > > no default "compile" or "test" bindings. > > > > Cheers, > > Paul > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
