<bump> Nobody in the same boat?

On 1/9/08, Kalle Korhonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm facing a similar issue in a couple Maven projects where I'm creating a
> a distribution package (e.g. tar.gz) or an installer (e.g rpm, Windows
> installer) for a binary (jar, exe). I have a separate module for the
> packager that has a dependency to the binary, and a parent pom for these.
> Say, for example "application" parent, with application-distro and and
> application-jar as child modules. I run the release:prepare from the parent
> and I correctly get the dependencies resolved. Now the issue is that since
> release:prepare only runs "test verify", building the application-distro
> fails because the release-versioned application-jar isn't available yet. I
> run the install of application-jar manually (note that the poms are already
> modified at this point) and resume release:prepare which now succeeds. Not
> too bad overall, but something I cannot imagine automating to a point of
> having it in Continuum as a single-button-release.
>
> So I'm looking for best practices and experiences from others in similar
> situations. One of the things is that I'm unsure of is if it makes any sense
> to version the distro separately; in practice it should always follow the
> versioning of the application itself (which I need to produce anyway; for
> development and running integration tests it's unnecessary to run the
> packager). I can see a few other ways to construct the build: either I can
> move the distro build to the parent (but then I need to combat the problems
> running assembly in a reactor build with a forked lifecycle or just run
> assembly manually and forget about versioning it), or I could make the
> assembly as part of the application module and simply use a different
> classifier for the installer (but that doesn't sound conceptually right and
> in case of Windows app/installers, both would likely produce exe types). How
> are others producing distros and installers organizing their Maven projects?
>
>
> Thanks,
> Kalle
>

Reply via email to