Quoting Jos Backus (2012-03-19 23:40:43) >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.
Well let's see if we can change this. I'll try to prepare patch for maven to generate rpms during build that would both work, and not make FHS proponents get angry (too much). If it gets commited: woot. If not at least I can tell my future kids I tried :-) That said I understand what would additional dist target entail for Maven devs. No hard feelings either way >> 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. If you disregard a bit of common sense of Linux distribution wrt FHS and similar things you could create rpm by using binary maven tarball. It is definitely easier than adding rpm output to Maven and supporting it on different distributions :-) >> 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. I like your approach. Kudos for handling this conversation in a civilized manner even though you were (more-less) turned down. Let's see if we can ease your pain a little bit... -- Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni...@redhat.com> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno PGP: 7B087241 Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
