Hi Manfred, On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Manfred Moser <manf...@mosabuam.com> wrote: > Jos, > > I agree with you in the sense that any open source project that cares about > a wide user base should try to provide packages of its software that are > useful to as many people as possible.
Thanks. > > Therefore e.g. the Jenkins effort to offer all sorts of installs is laudible > imho. Yes. It increases adoption by lowering the threshold to install/manage the software. > However for Maven this is clearly not going to happen from the current team. > There is just too much bad experience with old Maven packages supplied by > various parties. That's too bad, really, as it will cause people like me to reinvent the wheel. But I understand the perspective and it's not my place to tell people how to spend their time. > At this stage I would suggest to make the package yourself the way you want > and host it on your own yum repo. Then you can do what you want and provide > it to other people as well. Indeed. > You could try to push it to rpm repositories outside Fedora/Red Hat in case > any one is interested but it all depends on the effort you want to spend. > Most people want to be sure they have an Apache quality package and that is > only availalble in tar gz or zip with the well known disadvantages.. Yes, that's why it's desirable that the software producer produces the packages. > In fact imho the slow uptake of new versions e.g. Maven 3 vs Maven 2 is in > part due to the fact that no binaries for the various OS are available that > would get automatically updates as part of regular updates.. Yes, I think so, too. Not providing packages hampers adoption of newer versions because people will stick with the old versions that tends to ship with their distro if there's no easy way to upgrade. That is why I would think that the Maven folks would be interested in this, but it sounds like it's not a priority. Thanks for your response, Manfred, and for everyone else's input in this thread. Jos > > manfred > > > On 12-03-19 02:57 PM, Jos Backus wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Benson Margulies<bimargul...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Jos Backus<j...@catnook.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Jason van Zyl<ja...@tesla.io> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 19, 2012, at 4:14 PM, Jos Backus wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Jason van Zyl<ja...@tesla.io> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think if some 3rd party wants to provide an RPM have at it. I don't >>>>>>> think this is something we want to create or support. >>>>>> >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> >>>>>> Any reason why not, especially when it's easy to do so? It lowers the >>>>>> bar for users to deploy Maven. >>>>> >>>>> You're assuming it's easy to do but as an overall supported aspect of >>>>> the project nothing is easy. Maybe easy for you, but not for us :-) >>>>> Generating an RPM is one thing, supporting it and have it undergo the >>>>> construction that RPM proponents might require like building it offline >>>>> and >>>>> running it under our normal gamut of tests is probably not easy. You're >>>>> making an assumption that it lowers the bar, but I would argue that's for >>>>> a >>>>> much smaller segment of the user base then you might think -- I believe >>>>> Windows users still make up the largest segment. So as I've argued in the >>>>> past the value to the project overall versus the work to actually support >>>>> creating an RPM is up for discussion. I don't believe it's worth the >>>>> effort. >>>> >>>> Well, if installing Maven is really as easy as just unpacking a >>>> tarball, creating an RPM should not be hard. >>> >>> The java dependency is an issue. >> >> I would just leave it out of the package altogether. >> >>> And then ... every RPM of a Java >>> package I've ever seen has felt the need to take the self-contained >>> hierarchy of the normal distro and move things to other places. Config >>> to /etc, logs to /var/log,&cetra. So, right, one of us could probably >>> >>> come up with a trivial RPM, which would be trivially rejected by all >>> of the distro packages. >> >> Who cares if they reject it, if they are not offering anything better. >> >>> I could also mention the question of equal rights for debian users, >>> and don't even get me started on Gentoo. >> >> Well, what scales better: packagers associated with a single distro >> trying to package thousands of packages, or packagers associated with >> a single package packaging that package for a few (major) distros? >> >> Jos >> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >>> >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > -- Jos Backus jos at catnook.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
