Well the real question is what would you do with dependencies? So, for example, if you have a zip dependency, do you unpack it and overlay or do you copy it in? Or do you do nothing and leave it to the dependency plugin?
What about zip vs tar.gz dependency? If building a zip I might expect exploding the zip dependencies and copy tar.gz? A better approach might be an "assembly" packaging with a default assembly descriptor directory and if empty it falls back to zip and tar.gz of target/classes with the resources plugin being in the default lifecycle binding That would make using the assembly plugin less work and ack the fact that a zip or tar.gz needs the descriptor to control file permissions On Thursday, December 11, 2014, Anders Hammar <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, but I don't think making a specific plugin just for adding zip > packaging is optimal. Hence the idea of having it in the assembly plugin. > Thinking of it though, one very likely wants to create both a zip and a tar > file. So maybe the packaging type should be something else, and then it > creates both types. But then I always advocate that one maven project > should only create one artifact...hmm. > > /Anders > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Paul Benedict <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > Anders, like make a maven-zip-plugin project? > > On Dec 11, 2014 1:50 AM, "Anders Hammar" <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > I don't think that the zip package type should be part of Maven core, > but > > > we could provide some plugin which provides for it as a custom > packaging > > > type. Possibly this could be part of the assembly plugin. > > > > > > /Anders > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Paul Benedict <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > 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 < > > > > [email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ? > > > > > > > > > > Kristian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <[email protected] > <javascript:;>>: > > > > > > 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: [email protected] > <javascript:;> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Sent from my phone
