Hmm, not sure I agree - I think its just fact that users would love to have simpler way to create ZIPs/TARs and the most logical/simple way (from a users point of view) to do this is a packaging typ for these. Domi
On 11.12.2014, at 09:27, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <and...@hammar.net> 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 <pbened...@apache.org >> <javascript:;>> wrote: >> >>> Anders, like make a maven-zip-plugin project? >>> On Dec 11, 2014 1:50 AM, "Anders Hammar" <and...@hammar.net >> <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 <pbened...@apache.org >> <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 < >>>>> kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Probably because people just use the assembly plugin ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Kristian >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-12-11 6:38 GMT+01:00 Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org >> <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: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> <javascript:;> >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> <javascript:;> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > -- > Sent from my phone
