Mailing-List: contact felix-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of mcculls@gmail.com designates
 66.249.90.176 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=ExImW73m4fSOUDx7xXS5mpKEPB5awsMmmqDnvHKfQ+lGVSBDw+L6ptucTQtE145fwUCcl7d0+QkO6uAXkfjZYWZF07IsRpfWBv83SMen2X9CoH8DggV1GnUA0t+CxhKjsHa9w0EBr7GbD/LJk13pzni/4+3zBXbwRPQ6r5J8yUQ=
Message-ID: <81f0d9c0703252013p398ae94fr4d828baad183df6e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:13:31 +0800
From: "Stuart McCulloch" <stuart.mcculloch@jayway.net>
Sender: mcculls@gmail.com
To: felix-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Executive summary of maven-bundle-plugin issues
In-Reply-To: <1a5b6c410703252001o185f10ebm66502f26703cbd81@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <81f0d9c0703250445y2cad645csfc029c8b50665ef2@mail.gmail.com>
	 <87eb8aee0703251320m515eca9em43d078c28ce9a03e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <81f0d9c0703251941q2f773dadta10bce38f3d6140b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1a5b6c410703252001o185f10ebm66502f26703cbd81@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting - btw, does it handle top-level dependencies with 'provided' scope
as required by FELIX-262 (ie. to avoid the new artifact having transitive deps)

On 26/03/07, Carlos Sanchez <carlos@apache.org> wrote:
> I commented in 255 about this, it'd be easy to add a parameter to
> FELIX-199 bundleall goal to specify how deep to process the tree, you
> could set it to 1 to bundle only the direct dependencies
>
> On 3/25/07, Stuart McCulloch <stuart.mcculloch@jayway.net> wrote:
> > Hi Alin,
> >
> > Thanks for the comments - I'm not completely adverse to the idea of handling
> > the transitive dependency issue inside the plugin, just questioning the benefit
> > given there's (imho) a workable solution.
> >
> > I'm also worried that changing the way the bundle pulls in artifacts might break
> > other users. I believe this issue is only for the 'wrapping jar' case
> > - is that right?
> >
> > Anyway, this is just my own opinion - looking forward to hearing more views :)
> >
> > Cheers, Stuart
> >
> > On 26/03/07, Alin Dreghiciu <adreghiciu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Nice summary Stuart,
> > >
> > > I also posted some comments on FELIX-262 and FELIX-255.
> > >
> > > Alin Dreghiciu
> > >
> > > On 3/25/07, Stuart McCulloch <stuart.mcculloch@jayway.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > >
> > > > Currently there are 8 open issues for the maven-bundle-plugin. I've
> > > > written up a
> > > > short one-line status for each of them (inc. # of votes, whether a patch
> > > > exists)
> > > > along with a suggested course of action in another table. (see attached
> > > > file)
> > > >
> > > > The suggested actions are all MHO, so apologies if I've misrepresented any
> > > > of the issues, or the patches. Please post a follow-up message pointing
> > > > out
> > > > any mistakes, updates or alternative suggestions.
> > > >
> > > > Basically I recommend looking at FELIX-199 first, as it also solves
> > > > several
> > > > other issues. The one thorny area is over maven dependencies: whether to
> > > > get the user to handle this outside in the pom with other plugins, or to
> > > > add
> > > > options to the bundle plugin for the sake of convenience (FELIX-255/262).
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers, Stuart
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers, Stuart
> >
>
>
> --
> I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
> No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
>                              -- The Princess Bride
>


-- 
Cheers, Stuart