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 1QOORZ-0006ek-JF for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 23 May 2011 06:16:45 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 54B17E0429; Mon, 23 May 2011 06:15:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-fx0-f53.google.com (mail-fx0-f53.google.com [209.85.161.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F119BE0429 for ; Mon, 23 May 2011 06:15:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm8 with SMTP id 8so4597649fxm.40 for ; Sun, 22 May 2011 23:15:57 -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=D76zAGrSKYm3Vm6mK8qLDzn49e2FQcT/5iLiANamOOA=; b=piL9+TIB5oixeukzNlIpfivS63fD+OdL/B+pPbS9w8ztEK9Y4G4jZoD+f/QiB48NpI QKNYI532irQrvGs0sWW/b1OvoFMz8g2kpx6dIy1MElOsWxMcFx/dO5CNKJWJo5r0IKgR C1/YYpOvRHLde19Qf2NzWGdWOlLbFwMWVH9ac= 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=PQS+HHxlBwX6TXq78HZ+mOKECKRoXHLeLXy2nitlCT1jfNBlofJ6rkk69tuOmDKo9s h8Wx4fiT/rQGyoUt235N/OYhk8UlroCRn9IsQPMSy1frVUFBvUttmUYRNA8fSWtaZxsG xJWHdY7d31Cr35ZajAnfxAexuLhtfAUDI5gnM= 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 10.223.92.148 with SMTP id r20mr2027528fam.64.1306131356950; Sun, 22 May 2011 23:15:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.96.5 with HTTP; Sun, 22 May 2011 23:15:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DD985FA.3020904@gentoo.org> References: <4DD923B5.6060508@codelutin.com> <4DD985FA.3020904@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 11:45:56 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-java] Maven from source - version 2.x or 3.x ? From: Kasun Gajasinghe To: gentoo-java@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 41aae25dfbf2bfc2369707d90c86e384 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 process. >>> 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 since >>> in my experience and the area where I was involved in, haven't had any >>> plans to migrate to Maven 3.x soon. But the overall picture may vary. >>> >>> 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. 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! >> >> 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... >> Thanks... let's see what others say. See my comment below. > > 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 backport. > If they are largely compatible as you say then targeting 3.x shouldn't > be a problem knowledge wise. 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. So, I was in the mind supporting 2.x and then upgrade to 3.x when the time comes. Does the site-plugin is actually useful when packaging? Only packagers will know. If that's not matter much, then I'm OK to go with 3.x. [2] https://cwiki.apache.org/MAVEN/maven-3x-plugin-compatibility-matrix.htm= l Thanks, --Kasun --=20 ~~~*******'''''''''''''*******~~~ Kasun Gajasinghe, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. Blog: http://kasunbg.blogspot.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/kasunbg