This is exactly why I said "we might not want to distribute as javax.*". I am definitely concerned about ongoing maintenance etc. Ideally we'd get the Glassfish project themselves to build the Jars and submit to Maven repo. They are using Ant and Maven1 for their build process, so they are familiar with the Maven repo concept.
I will compile the sources, compare each to the binaries distributed by Glassfish, and report back later today... Wayne On 2/27/06, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wayne Fay wrote: > > > > > However, the CDDL source code license ensures we **can** download the > > proper source, build/unit test, package, bundle with poms, and deploy > > **those** executables from the repo. > > > > This is an important difference. That's why I originally said: > >>> Assuming we all agree that we can do it legally, I'd be happy to build > >>> the jars, write the poms, and add to Jira for uploading. > > > > Any more comments? :-) > > That would be progress. One thing to check is how much difference is > there between a JAR made that way and a released JAR. In an ideal world. > apart from manifest data, there would be no difference. > > But if there is a difference, there is a risk that something wont work, > and then who is left fielding the problems? > > Maybe the artifacts should be published with a groupId that indicates it > was rebuilt or something, so that glassfish-rebuilt-jta-1.0.3.jar is > clearly different from jta-1.0.3.jar. > > -steve > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
