accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sean Busbey <bus...@clouderagovt.com>
Subject Re: "Provided" dependencies
Date Thu, 07 Nov 2013 22:09:05 GMT
Can we please specify what use case we're hoping to ease by changing our
provided status for e.g. hadoop-client?




On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Keith Turner <keith@deenlo.com> wrote:

> Dropping provided sounds good.    Seems like it would make users poms
> simpler.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > What's the latest opinion whether things should be marked "provided" in
> > the pom?
> > I've changed my mind on this a few times, myself, so I'm curious what
> > others think.
> >
> > The provided scope means that it will not propagate as a transitive
> > dependency. Other than that, it doesn't do much... though we can
> > control packaging based on provided or not.
> >
> > I'm not sure this gets us much, and it's inconvenient for users. We
> > can control packaging in other ways (like being more explicit and
> > carefully considering which dependencies we include in an RPM or
> > tarball, for instance).
> >
> > If we drop its declaration, what this means, is that if users want to
> > build with Accumulo as a dependency, but against a different version
> > of Hadoop than what we declare in our POM, they'll have to explicitly
> > <exclude> the hadoop dependencies, and redeclare them, or they will
> > have to use their <dependencyManagement> section to force a particular
> > dependency of hadoop.
> >
> > The advantage to users, though, if we drop this, is that they won't
> > have to constantly re-declare transitive dependencies to get their
> > projects to build/test/run.
> >
> > See http://s.apache.org/maven-dependency-scopes
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
>



-- 
Sean

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message