This strikes me as forking maven, making a fundamental changing in the behavior, and then passing off the results as still 'maven'. I'm not sure if 'trademark' is the right stepping-off point here, but something about it seems very wrong.
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 2, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Kasun Gajasinghe wrote: >>> >> >> Ralph, >> No, you are not discouraging me in anyway. This stage is just the first step >> of a much wider task. The ultimate goal of this work is to provide the >> ability to package maven-based builds to Gentoo system. Gentoo encourages >> and the package-management installs packages by first compiling them from >> source. So, as you can understand, if the package source uses maven as the >> build management tool, it needs maven to do the building and generate the >> jar. >> >> Further, there are other constraints involved. Mainly the packages should be >> able to use the existing jars available in the system (under /usr/share), >> and we've are not strict about having a specific version as a dep as long >> the existing system jar is api-compatible. > > > This makes me wonder if anyone you are working with has experience working > with Java applications. What you are doing sounds like it is ripe for > problems. API dependencies aren't the only things that change between > versions. You might have new configuration attributes added, additional > dependencies, etc. Trying to get a whole pile of Java-based applications to > use the same versions of jars is a problem in an application server, let > alone across a whole operating system. > > Ralph > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
