2009/6/26 Aidan Skinner <[email protected]>: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Rafael Schloming <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm not sure how solvable this problem really is. The fundamental issue >> seems to be that maven users want the canonical qpid dependencies specified >> in terms of maven repos, whereas we need the canonical qpid dependencies to >> be whatever is checked into svn. > > I don't think there needs to be a conflict between these. > >> It seems like one way or another we'll need to maintain an extra non >> canonical set of dependency metadata in order to produce meaningful poms. > > I think we can use ivy to avoid having duplicate metadata. >
I've not used Ivy, so I may be underestimating its cleverness; but I'm not sure how we can get away without the meta data being in effect a manually maintained duplicate of data that is mastered elsewhere. In particular we want/require to build of versions of jars that are in our repo (so that we can have repeatable builds). Thus the "metadata" is actually the version information pertaining to the jars that are actually checked in. Are you saying that Ivy extracts version information from the checked in jars - or do we have to manually maintain a list of what jars are at what version? -- Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
