From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QOOoD-0000O5-KF for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 23 May 2011 06:40:09 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EA13C1C081; Mon, 23 May 2011 06:38:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from petteriraty.eu (petteriraty.eu [188.40.80.83]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9651C081 for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 06:38:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [82.130.46.199] (qiv7.kyla.fi [82.130.46.199]) by petteriraty.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7AFD53ED0D for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 06:38:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4DDA00D4.3060603@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 09:38:12 +0300 From: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0dGVyaSBSw6R0eQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fi; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090916 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-java@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-java@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-java] Maven from source - version 2.x or 3.x ? References: <4DD923B5.6060508@codelutin.com> <4DD985FA.3020904@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 OpenPGP: id=B8E4ECF0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig38791173252D2FD0C80DF571" X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: c6aca5d007ffb7c2b81568d4c66cdc6c This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig38791173252D2FD0C80DF571 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 05/23/2011 09:15 AM, Kasun Gajasinghe wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Petteri R=C3=A4ty wrote: >> On 05/22/2011 05:54 PM, Eric Chatellier wrote: >>> Le 22/05/2011 07:38, Kasun Gajasinghe a =C3=A9crit : >>>> Hi all, >>>> I'm working on getting Apache Maven in to work by building from >>>> source. Currently, in main tree, Maven is installed using the binary= >>>> (dev-java/maven-bin), which is against the Gentoo Java Packaging >>>> Policy. >>>> >>>> Getting Maven in to work by building-from-source is a lengthy proces= s. >>>> We have two main versions to go ahead. The 2.x range with the latest= >>>> being v2.2.1, and the 3.x range with the latest being v3.0.3. The >>>> compatibility notes for 2.x and 3.x are at [1]. There's only few >>>> compatibility issues as I've seen. I was thinking to go with 2.x sin= ce >>>> in my experience and the area where I was involved in, haven't had a= ny >>>> plans to migrate to Maven 3.x soon. But the overall picture may vary= =2E >>>> >>>> So, I'm asking from the Gentoo's Java community, what's the suitable= >>>> version to go with? 2.x or 3.x >>> Hi, i'm a gentoo user and java developper using maven for >>> years. I also known the maven gentoo problem ;) >>> So i'll be happy to help you or test your work. >=20 > Thanks Eric. Much appreciate your help. I'm starting out now, and my > objective first goal is to bump all the maven modules. As you probably > know, maven-from-source is implemented in java-overlay though it's not > in a working state. So, have to fix all the bugs in there! :) > I could possibly use help on knowing the issues the current > implementation have for now only if you like that kind of thing! >=20 >=20 >>> >>> For maven 2/3, 3.x is a new achitecture intended to >>> be maven 2 complaint. So, i vote for 3.x. >>> But maybe 3.x is too young... >>> >=20 > Thanks... let's see what others say. See my comment below. >=20 >> >> Eventually 2.x will die while 3.x continues to be supported and so on.= I >> would target 3.x and then do 2.x also if it's relative easy to backpor= t. >> If they are largely compatible as you say then targeting 3.x shouldn't= >> be a problem knowledge wise. >=20 > True. As they say, the *major* objective of Maven 3 was to decouple > maven core from reporting tools (such as site plugin). So, yes, Maven > 3.x is compatible with 2.x except for the site plugin and few other > plugins mentioned at [2]. We can back-port, but _most_ of the projects > still depend on 2.x because there isn't any major issue with 2.x > except for the slightly slower performance afaik. So, I was afraid > whether going ahead with 3.x makes the real projects can't use > maven-from-source thing effectively. >=20 maven-bin 2.x support continues to work through the binary package? Regards, Petteri --------------enig38791173252D2FD0C80DF571 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJN2gDYAAoJEPeUsk245OzwNmEQAI3epEFDOAJnT6ksA+Fvl6oO 7+AOZwdKw3FJTM361HoQpjef1VfQVbuOvVXhDhnPuS7ej28jRTbpCXA400HhQLfO fnsj+avuwrVUfXg0a7OtVI2MvYTaqDyBC4xZziaRWVmjDnP57NZUTWRbnY4/m6JZ 7Kek8+9PjPb8Zrw93XwG2kjz6MVJ5NVea+v2S+G2JlB3hqLknhcqoNjgLnkPZHOh NL+oHH3JqOXG7Jm8JvdPyHdZdaVGwWND6uDcXksEB0usUwdsqJPuRs6kba2unJIb cbZ/wk2/NXVxaWJ1YD8DxVksak5cAFuKHQ3XLlkuTvyM7SvyDMry9cEx49lGvjlr 8k64PCkxJGOg0OFsP7jZLocficgLJjiYG1EmdMHIAHogM95uBjSksoRUj3cwT34U EB/JDqxzjqQo47DwST56xvmlQBxAfz3oeciK3KB3aofOutYEUAOCJ5gAFna3P03j exlDCOF1WEbyD45vRyM3mE/iFVdyNl9FPbtqKVDSU9192+LlPT5wu1UxdsF4Fb7m 1iWELONM83l9Kcd5QWozUd41CBUZC/WCigiojD98r9g9HAqbBhSB+HL8q+Alrbzj xed9dJMOSBXfI/xcQtYRGWLd2Ru/Lukw+FdkyRqsMstlXlVEhi8rTQUvLVFYAfJO BImC+fGBc7QgbH019/BL =ISat -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig38791173252D2FD0C80DF571--