Hi Ben, Nice!
https://github.com/apache/maven-jlink-plugin/blob/master/src/it/projects/MJLINK-52_classifiers_jarproject/pom.xml This is what I as looking for, even if an explicit <classifier>jlink</classifier> has t be defined. Thanks! Cheers, Andres ------------------------------------------- Java Champion; Groovy Enthusiast http://andresalmiray.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/aalmiray -- What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator. There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion. On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 8:12 AM Benjamin Marwell <bmarw...@apache.org> wrote: > > Not that I want to hijack this thread > No worries! It is always good to have an extra pair of eyes look at > the work of a new committer. ;-) > > > However for single project builds the <packaging>jlink</packaging> would > > prevent other packaging options, wouldn't it? > I created ITs, but this set-up is not an the list: > https://github.com/apache/maven-jlink-plugin/tree/master/src/it/projects > (Especially MJLINK-52_*). > I would not know why this would prevent other packaging options. > I will create another IT which will be packaging=jlink and > add a jar execution. Note that you will need to define the execution > manually. > > > Say I want to have single JAR, shaded JAR, and jlink image on the same > > single project build. Is it possible to do so? > This is why MJLINK-52 adds classifiers. > The check of existing artifacts was broken before then. > Most ITs from the link above already show a single jar project > with an extra jlink execution. Add as many shaded jars as you like… > > Does that help? > > Thanks, > Ben > > On 15.12.20 22:53, Andres Almiray wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Not that I want to hijack this thread but considering that the move is > from > > a fix release to a minor release I wonder about the use of > > <packaging>jlink</packaging>. > > > > For a multi-module project having this packaging option is not much of a > > problem, as if the project produces more than one artifact (such as a > > shaded JAR, jar with classpath, assemble/assembler, jlink) then an extra > > module can perform the jlink packaging. > > > > However for single project builds the <packaging>jlink</packaging> would > > prevent other packaging options, wouldn't it? > > Say I want to have single JAR, shaded JAR, and jlink image on the same > > single project build. Is it possible to do so? > > > > If it is, then I missed it in the docs. > > It it's not allowed then I'd suggest if JAR packaging is also enabled > when > > <packaging>jlink</packaging> is defined, so keep them both active. Then > > remove <packaging>jlink</packaging> in 4.0.0. > > > > As reference the Helidon maven plugin supports creating jlink and Graal > > native images while keeping <packaging>jar</packaging> > > > > > https://github.com/oracle/helidon-build-tools/tree/master/helidon-maven-plugin > > > > All this being said, this comment is to weight in a possible change that > > would merit a minor release instead of a fix release. > > > > Cheers, > > Andres > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > Java Champion; Groovy Enthusiast > > http://andresalmiray.com > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/aalmiray > > -- > > What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator. > > There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, > and > > those who don't. > > To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion. > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 10:38 PM Benjamin Marwell <bmarw...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> Hello everyone, > >> > >> looking at the issues already solved and soon-be-solved, the next > release > >> feels much more like a 3.1.0 release than a 3.0.1 (bugfix) release [1]. > >> > >> If you agree, I would like to update the git repository to 3.1.0 and > create > >> a 3.0.x branch from the last release, if needed. > >> > >> I would also like to request some help with the documentation [2]. > >> Currently it says that an extra 'dist' project is needed, but with the > >> introduction of classifiers (or moving the main jar away using a > >> classifier), this does not hold true anymore. > >> > >> Third, I would like to move MJLINK-39 [3] to a 3.2.0 release (or even > >> "won’t fix"), as the 'vm' option only applies to 32bit vms and is not > even > >> documented anymore – only 'jlink --plugin-list' shows its usage. > >> > >> Summary: > >> 4 issues left, of which are: > >> 1 with PR to be merged (update plexus-utils) > >> 1 with PR half-way done (--add-options for launcher script) > >> 1 documentation to be done > >> 1 to be moved away or "wont’t fix". > >> > >> Thanks in advance, > >> Ben > >> > >> [1] > >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MJLINK-60?jql=project%20%3D%20MJLINK%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%203.0.1 > >> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MJLINK-49 > >> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MJLINK-39 > >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
