Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Remember that these are root directories. For another example, the RDF
> > files don't belong on the web site. They are meta-data published only
via
> > SVN for the ASF's internal use. So site/ was the site related content,
not
> > just the site. It was what we had factored out from the code trees.
> Yes, and this is why james-project doesn't belong to site: it is used to
> build our maven2 based products, so it is part of the source code of our
> products.
Spanning a single versionable entity across more than one {ttb} structure is
rather odd, but it is possible preferable to svn:external.
> It is clear that we don't have a consensus here... and it seems to me
> that is something more religious than technical
I'm not so sure of that, but we can fix anything later.
> From your words it seems to me that ASF has much restrictive requirement
> for James and that this requirements do not apply to jakarta, directory,
> maven and other maven based tlp projects, but I can't find documentation
> on the apache site with regard to this issue (or difference).
Which words? What did you read from any of the folks on repository@, when
they spoke against using the download mechanism and said to use local,
file-based, repositories because of problems with Maven-driven traffic and
security issues that was different?
> Yes, project has now a ttb structure and we'll need to release it when
> we'll be ready to release jspf and mime4j.
Release it as what? As PART OF something else, e.g., jSPF?
> In my reply I also raised a few problems with that idea and proposed a
> different solution (evolution of that idea where we didn't need a
> shared repository but we simply include the per-project jars in the
> source tree for that project like we do for ant-based projects (simply
> using a different convention for the lib folder structure).
OK, so still a local, file-based, repository? How does this substantively
differ from what Dims et al suggested? Perhaps they didn't notice anything
different enough upon which to comment?
> We are lucky because we don't have license restricted dependencies and
> we can include all of them. My solution would not apply to projects
> depending on restricted libraries.
That's OK. Such libraries are being so discouraged that I doubt that you
will see much of them anymore.
> With the current setup jspf and mime4j have a file based repository that
> is downloaded with the source tree for 3rd party libraries and only uses
> networking to download jars from official ASF repositories.
That's fine, with the caveat that we should make sure that no one is
complaining about our driving downloads to ASF servers.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
