directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ceki Gülcü <lis...@qos.ch>
Subject Re: [Attentione] Reverted nlog4j 1.2.19 => 1.2.23 upgrade
Date Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:39:11 GMT

Alex,

To begin, I am sorry about the hassle this upgrade is causing. Looking at 
the Maven repository at ibiblio, it seems that they (ibiblio) are 
publishing the pom files without modification [1].

Here are some details about the process for building the jar file for ibiblio:

- NLOG4J does not use Maven itself,
- The jar file used for the Maven (Ibiblio) upload requests gets assembled 
by an Ant build file [2].
- It uses the pom file defined in [3].

[1] http://www.ibiblio.org/maven/org.slf4j/poms/
[2] http://svn.slf4j.org/viewcvs/nlog4j/trunk/ibiblio.xml
[3] http://svn.slf4j.org/viewcvs/nlog4j/trunk/src/pom/project.xml

At this stage I am tempted to simply delete the dependency tags in NLOG4J's 
pom file. I could also add a <scope>provided</scope> element in each 
appropriate dependency. Which alternative do you think is better?

At 05:11 PM 3/13/2006, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>Ceki,
>
>
>My comments are inline...
>
>Gülcü wrote:
>>At 08:58 AM 3/11/2006, Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>>>Just kidding but we need to talk to Ceki about this and see if he can 
>>>change his pom.  At this point we cannot upgrade to the 1.0 slf4j 
>>>compatible nlog4j.  It adds things like the jmx jar, activation, mail, 
>>>and I think I even saw Maven download my mother in law.
>>
>>>This happened once before and Ceki reverted.  I don't think he'd stick 
>>>with this so we just need to talk to him.  Perhaps he's unaware of it 
>>>creeping in again.
>>
>>No, I am not aware of jmx, activation, mail... jar files creeping in as 
>>requirements downstream. Those files are required for compiling NLOG4J 
>>(as well as log4j) but compiling log4j/nlog4j should not be an ADS 
>>concern. NLOG4J SVN repository [1] indicates that the NLOG4J's POM file 
>>has not changed since 28th of August 2005. You also mentioned that ADS 
>>was currently using 1.2.19 which was released around December 2005. Given 
>>that NLOG4J's POM file has not changed between 1.2.19 and 1.2.23, there 
>>is nothing to revert, is there?
>>
>>[1] 
>>http://svn.slf4j.org/viewcvs/nlog4j/trunk/src/pom/project.xml?rev=243&view=log
>Hmmm that's very odd.  Something had to change.  Looks like this is a 
>Maven 1 pom.  So someone put together the Maven 2 pom for you at ibiblio 
>without considering the scope of the dependencies.  In maven 2 you can 
>control dependency scope.  Meaning you can make things dependent for test, 
>or just compile stages of the lifecycle.  Namely here these dependencies 
>should be of the provided scope I think: if they are used then the jars 
>are provided.  Brett Porter would know best but I hate to bug the guy :).
>>>Forgive the crazy email ... its late...
>>>Alex
>>>
>>>P.S. Ceki help us to get to 1.2.23 please!
>>
>>I am not very Maven savvy but other than that I'll do my best.
>>
>>First question, are you trying to build NLOG4J with Maven? If not, is it 
>>possible to tell Maven not to drag in NLOG4J dependencies?
>Yeah there is with Maven 2 and apparent this is what has been 
>misconfigured by who ever put deployed the nlog4j jar.  The dependencies 
>for sun jars should always be provided I "think" to prevent their 
>transitivity.  Incidentally our build uses maven 2.
>
>Alex
>

-- 
Ceki Gülcü
http://ceki.blogspot.com/


Mime
View raw message