There is nothing wrong with having or using the minimal POMs that can be found in the repository. As a user if I find, for example, a sun library for which no POM exists, I am willing to submit a basic POM which will cause my build to continue unimpeded by its absence. I won't however, stop every time this occurs and fill out a bunch of excess metadata with no programmatic relevance that someone else decided would be nice to have in the file as well.
Keep in mind this one file format is used for two entirely distinct purposes. The first, describing a project you're building, seems a more plausible explanation of what the extra metadata is geared towards. The second, using the project as a dependency, gains no benefit from the metadata you are suggesting users should insist on. When the m2 codebase becomes beta-ready and the minimal information in the repository lets me build my projects, I personally don't want to wait around for a metadata cleanup before they open the doors on mainstream usage. I'd rather have the extra effort go towards plugin development. But since maven permits you to specify your repository in your settings, none of this is a problem. If you need a higher quality repository than what's available you can simply create one within your own environment and point to it. Each time you need a new dependency met, you can copy from ibiblio and add the additional information to the POM necessary for your projects. See maven-proxy, it works with m2 as well. Kris On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 09:53 +0200, Maczka Michal wrote: > If I can have a suggestion: > > I the fact that repository is changing constantly is even worst then > the > fact that some POMs are missing or are incorrect. > > I cannot imagine somebody using m2 in production and relaying on such > unstable repository which introduces indeterminism to builds. > It's just enough to change an order of dependencies in one of the POMs > and > some builds might be broken or what's very serious > not possible to reproduce in the future. > > From this perspective it might be better to have a smaller but high > quality > repository which is growing then a big crappy repository containing > invalid POMs or "naked" POMs like that > (http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/axis/axis/1.2/axis-1.2.pom): > > project> > <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion> > <groupId>axis</groupId> > <artifactId>axis</artifactId> > <version>1.2</version> > </project> > > > IMO at least project description and license should be present in all > POMs > in the repository. > It will be nice to have more things in those POMs (e.g. url of the > main > website, organization section etc) > And unfortunately no tool can provide this information automatically. > You > need many people to help you with that! > > > Michal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
