No possible licensing restriction can prevent you from having your own shared repository with nexus or archiva or artifactory and pushing whatever you want to it.
For that matter, it's not too hard to write a script that calls install:install-file on each of a pile of jar files. You can't do this in the reactor and then use the results (AFAIK), but you can run this and then run the build. In other words, anything you can do with system scope you can do with less headaches with a repo manager or instal:install-file. On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Bengt Rodehav <be...@rodehav.com> wrote: > Last time I went through this I never came all the way to a complete list > but I do remember there were lots of jars missing. I guess I'll have to > reiterate this again since system scope doesn't seem to be supported > anymore. > > /Bengt > > 2011/11/12 Wayne Fay <wayne...@gmail.com> > >> What else do you need? Why not full client + some reasonable (small) >> handful of other dependencies? >> >> Wayne >> >> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Bengt Rodehav <be...@rodehav.com> wrote: >> > It works but the full client is not enough for us to be able to build our >> > application. >> > >> > Den 11 nov 2011 23:11 skrev "Ryan Connolly" <ryn...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >> Does this no longer work? >> >> http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E12840_01/wls/docs103/client/t3.html >> >> On Nov 11, 2011 3:38 PM, "Bengt Rodehav" <be...@rodehav.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Stephen and Wayne, >> >> > >> >> > I agree that using system scope is undesirable. However, there is a >> > reason >> >> > why maven has had this support - it is needed in real life. In my >> > case, I >> >> > use Weblogic. When first trying to migrate our old ant based build >> > system >> >> > to maven, I started out by trying to put the Weblogic jar:s in the >> maven >> >> > repo. It just wasn't doable. They have split the big, all >> encompassing, >> > jar >> >> > file from previous versions into hundreds of individual jar files. I >> > gave >> >> > up after a while. I guess if I could find a tool that could convert >> all >> >> > these jars into one "super jar" then I could put that jar in the maven >> >> > repo. I'm not sure that Oracle's licensing rules would allow it >> though. >> >> > >> >> > Dropping support like this because you don't think it's the best way >> to >> >> > handle things will not give you a loyal user base. We need to solve >> > these >> >> > kind of issues somehow. Before you remove support you must provide an >> >> > alternate solution. Requiring that hundreds of proprietary jars have >> to >> > be >> >> > put in the maven repo (and updated each time we upgrade Weblogic) is >> > just >> >> > not realistic. I've been searching for a good tool that can traverse >> the >> >> > manifest classpath's and create a single jar from all individual jars. >> > Do >> >> > you know of any such tool? >> >> > >> >> > The transitive dependency problem is not exactly the way you describe >> it >> >> > Stephen. I don't need transitive dependencies from a system scoped >> >> > dependency but I want the transitive dependencies to work up to the >> > system >> >> > scoped dependency: >> >> > >> >> > If A depends on B that depends on S (via a system scoped dependency), >> > then >> >> > maven should be able to include S on A's build classpath. >> >> > >> >> > The way maven works right now I tend to agree that system scoped >> >> > dependencies are useless. This is because their location must be hard >> > coded >> >> > in the POM. Naturally system scoped dependencies reside in different >> > places >> >> > in different environments. In our case it resides where the user has >> >> > installed Weblogic. >> >> > >> >> > /Bengt >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > 2011/11/11 Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> >> >> > >> >> > > On 11 November 2011 16:31, Wayne Fay <wayne...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > >> System scoped dependencies are dead. Ignore their zombie like >> > walking >> >> > > >> about. Stop fighting maven and just install the jars into a repo >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I agree, but shouldn't we kill system entirely at some point (I >> mean >> >> > > > in the code) -- if we see a system-scoped dependency, we just fail >> > the >> >> > > > build with an appropriate error message? It is a dead concept IMO >> > and >> >> > > > is simply confusing to users who try to use it. >> >> > > >> >> > > Yes I agree... but lets get 3.0.4 out first ;-) >> >> > > >> >> > > To answer the OP >> >> > > >> >> > > Think of it like this, when you specify a "system" scope dependency >> >> > > then you are stating that the system is responsible for providing >> that >> >> > > dependency _and_ all its dependencies -> transitive stops at system >> >> > > >> >> > > Similarly, with provided scope, you are saying that somebody else is >> >> > > taking care of providing that dependency at run time, and so >> therefore >> >> > > maven doesn't have to worry about it or its dependencies. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Wayne >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
