2008/7/23 Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 23/07/2008, at 1:34 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: >> Ok, >> >> I have a package for the new 140 version as that's what I'm using but what >> they have in central currently doesn't use classifiers which is probably not >> so good. >> >> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/bouncycastle/ >> >> So we can either: >> >> 1) Follow what they have their which is incorrect technically >> 2) Deploy using classifiers as it probably should. Leave the old version >> 130 there as it but also redeploy it using classifiers >> >> If we can decide I'll push version 140 into central. > > I think part of the problem is that there will be only one POM, but you need > to express dependencies, and all those have classifiers. This is probably > why I put them in in the form I did some time back. I'd prefer classifiers > myself if there's some way we can think to work around that?
Was any consensus reached regarding uploading bouncycastle 140 to central? I was about to submit an upload request and then recalled this discussion. Whilst we're doing this, shall we fix the following?: - use org.bouncycastle group id rather than bouncycastle - add dependencies, e.g. bcmail should depend on bcprov - supply source and javadoc jars - [contentious] change version to 1.40 instead of 140, as detailed in the release notes And as discussed above: - [impossible?] use classifiers for jdk Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
