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 1QPWBv-0008UP-Kx for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 26 May 2011 08:45:15 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7D5451C023; Thu, 26 May 2011 08:44:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B051C023 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 08:44:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 876EF1B4008 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 08:44:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -3.526 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.526 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NZJelRIrIwxB for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 08:44:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-f49.google.com (mail-yw0-f49.google.com [209.85.213.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F30FE1B400B for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 08:44:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ywf9 with SMTP id 9so256366ywf.36 for ; Thu, 26 May 2011 01:44:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TJ3nAg3ZJoJYKPhjki99xEf/FH/FucIRxNCKIW2Aqxc=; b=KVuOz2KMHRyysTAEgTZxjb4CXnVPsyQ1/MAy8sOaNxCJ5X+uGz2mFjTxyh8tjlYS/D NDpIwlry63/RsxF/MkEuryHHlRfMdklFAxoZ09PmrTtCOxRn4YPlV0ldmYsKSXA3/Qag JBWSvYGNBqjrS/xHHbXCPajZHu0iJM/lnz9fk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=oxh+a1zqEC18/TTfDhE+jPUAi4iPYgB9VkHIukUjFlWIHvgG767Ksws/9VreDyu0vG MmXrNixQCzcfqqZb4BKfP4Ov0oHnKCS5Xb+SKkaLsi1ZfcI+7gaJbukoEkAP6ZP2JOVy tN3grFigPOrfoeczcZ7m+j/z3yEhV+Z4/zYus= 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 Received: by 10.236.118.72 with SMTP id k48mr712028yhh.425.1306399466761; Thu, 26 May 2011 01:44:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.109.17 with HTTP; Thu, 26 May 2011 01:44:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4DD923B5.6060508@codelutin.com> <4DD985FA.3020904@gentoo.org> <4DDA00D4.3060603@gentoo.org> <4DDB753E.4020908@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 09:44:26 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-java] Re: Maven from source - version 2.x or 3.x ? From: Robert Burrell Donkin To: gentoo-java@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 6c843e8ff0c40924a34ae00874951d93 On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:09 PM, J=F6rg Schaible wr= ote: > Hi Robert, Hi J=F6rg :-) > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > >> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Kasun Gajasinghe >> wrote: >>> On 24 May 2011, at 14:37, Petteri R=E4ty >>> wrote: >>>> On 05/23/2011 07:52 PM, Kasun Gajasinghe wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> maven-bin 2.x support continues to work through the binary package? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, we can keep supporting maven-bin 2.x for maven users. Though the >>>>> packagers of projects based on maven won't be able to use the support >>>>> for maven 2.x if we start with 3.x.This project's focus is more >>>>> towards packagers, right? =A0I think Serkan or people who are more >>>>> familiar with this can give an exact answer. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So are you discussing which version of Maven to build from source or >>>> which version to target ebuild infrastructure for? Those two don't >>>> necessarily need to be the same and your topic implied the former but >>>> the above talks about the latter. >>> >>> Well, mainly this project is inclined towards packagers. >>> But of course the users are targeted too. Currently, users have the >>> maven-bin too >>> which means they have a choice in hand. The problem with Maven 3 is >>> that some important plugins for users are not >>> supported yet. >> >> AIUI the situation is more complex than that >> >> maven seems to be moving towards requiring specific core versions for >> builds. some =A0projects i develop require maven 2, some maven 3. i >> manage this situation with a set of custom scripts and installations >> independent of gentoo. i expect other developers now work in a similar >> way. (same goes for jdks.) the gentoo java stuff just gets in my way >> now for development. > > Why? I have emerged maven:1.0, maven:1.1, maven:2.0, maven:2.2 and > maven:3.0. I've selected my default version with eselect. However, I can = use > any of those versions at the same time: > > /usr/bin $ ls -lGgo m*v*n* > lrwxrwxrwx 1 =A0 =A034 Jan 22 14:07 maven-1.0 -> /usr/share/maven- > bin-1.0/bin/maven > lrwxrwxrwx 1 =A0 =A034 Jan 22 14:07 maven-1.1 -> /usr/share/maven- > bin-1.1/bin/maven > lrwxrwxrwx 1 =A0 =A0 7 Jul 19 =A02010 mvn -> mvn-3.0 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 =A0 =A032 Apr 30 =A02010 mvn-2.0 -> /usr/share/maven-bin-2.0= /bin/mvn > lrwxrwxrwx 1 =A0 =A032 Apr 30 =A02010 mvn-2.2 -> /usr/share/maven-bin-2.2= /bin/mvn > lrwxrwxrwx 1 =A0 =A032 Mar 10 18:17 mvn-3.0 -> /usr/share/maven-bin-3.0/b= in/mvn > > All that eselect effectively does is to switch the unversioned link. You = may > call any of those scripts (well, you should not have set MAVEN_HOME at al= l, > the Maven start script will do this for you anyway). Cool. Thanks :-) Apache James builds now insists on particular minor versions (mostly 3.0.3 ATM). This matches the current version for maven-bin-3.0 but I suppose it should be easy enough to create an overlay or something to handle minor versions when needed...) >> FWIW one unresolved challenge for linux distributions with the rise of >> bytecode languages (such as Java) is that compressed bytecodes are not >> binaries in the usual sense (platform dependent machine executable >> machine code). i know that it's a hard thing for the linux community >> to hear but it's about time that the community acknowledged that these >> languages are now mainstream and stop trying to force them into a >> inappropriate provisioning model. > > To build Maven from source in Gentoo I wonder about the hen-and-egg probl= em. +1 The scale scares me as well. Loosely coupled systems assembled from lots of components are becoming the dominant paradigm for bytecode languages (such as java and ruby). The amount of effort required to create independent builds for all those libraries is huge for no gain I know. I still believe that there are significant advantages to building every application from source, and most applications built from bytecode can be optimised for a platform. But IMHO the bytecode repository approach is the best way to manage libraries for these languages. Robert