We are really aware of these problems, and it's not just Maven, Ant,
Ivy and other tools also make use of the repository. There are mailing
lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] (for ASF repository) and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (for the whole central repo).
i'd just point to
http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-maven-evangelism.html
http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html
to fix problems when the original projects don't care about the repository
On 5/4/07, Joerg Hohwiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi there,
I am seeing more and more the need that the community takes better control over
what is dumped into the central repo. This seems to get more and more like a
rubbish dump. There are duplications of the logically same artifacts. This
causes extremly ugly situations in projects with a high level of integration,
because you may end up with the same code multiple times in your classpath.
To point this out just two examples:
javax.persistence with 3 different groupId's:
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/javax/persistence/
http://download.java.net/maven/1/javax.ejb/jars/
spring:
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/springframework/
there is an all-in-one actifact (spring)
as well as fine modularized artifacts (spring-core, etc.).
You might say that this is the problem of the projects producing such artifacts.
If you ask me this is also a question about wether maven2 is a real success or
not. In such situations I hear many people scream that dependency management is
the gate to hell. It is definetly not, but you get punished by the bad work of
the others. And if you look at the zoo of senseless dependecies of apache
artifacts such as xerces or some of the commons it is really a pitty!
Please also consider that it is NOT an option to remove or modify an artifact
from the central repository. There is the need to tripple-think about it before
adding an artifact to the central repository ESPECIALLY if the one putting it
into the repository is NOT the creator of the artifact.
I am already active on the mailing-lists of several other open-source projects
trying to convince the people about the need and the impact of maintaining their
artifacts properly themselves for being uploaded to ibiblio.
It is somewhat strange that even apache-projects like lucene or POI dont think
much of maven and need to be convinced that it is worth the effort of providing
valid and senseful POMs for their artifacts and staging them to ibiblio.
For lucene I provided the POMs for some contrib half a year ago and nothing
happened so far.
Greetings from a maven fan that is a little frustrated
Jörg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGO5dymPuec2Dcv/8RAhS7AJsFQK0ro4tECUhvtdqXNJ2GYy2WgACdGBXY
igNS02rPP8PH1lA1rVYiIJg=
=9+xA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
