geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <david.blev...@visi.com>
Subject Re: m2: flushing out our dependencies
Date Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:35:45 GMT

On Nov 16, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:

> castor 0.9.9:
> Maybe Blevins can answer this. It's in the pom.xml of the  
> m2assembly project. This pom.xml is actually a compilation of all  
> our project.xmls. But our project.xml has castor listed as 0.9.5.3 .
>

Castor 0.9.5.3 will be fine.  I though my old wsdl code in the  
webservices module was the only one using it so I took the liberty of  
upgrading the version to 0.9.9 as its more recent.  I'm cool with  
whatever version.

> activemq-core-test:
> javacc:
> xmlbeans-jsr173-api:
> The above 3 are seen in the log generatd by the mvn -U command.  
> They are not found in either the pom.xml or in any of our  
> project.xmls.
> (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200511.mbox/% 
> 3c7C66613E-10BF-4733-A80E-F8CB03C42387@visi.com%3e )

Run the m2assembly build again and see if they are still required.

> On 11/16/05, David H. DeWolf <ddewolf@apache.org> wrote: Pluto's  
> dependency is currently listed as:
>
> 0.9.5.3
>
> I think 0.9.9 is from something else.
>
> David
>
>
>
> On 11/16/05, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 16, 2005, at 8:20 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> >
> > > Of the 14 missing jars, I was able to track down all but 5. I  
> had some
> > > Qs about those 5 -
> > >
> > > castor ||castor || 0.9.9 || 0.9.9.1 exists. Update pom to use  
> this ?
> > what is using castor?  I think pluto is, anything else?
> >
> > > org.apache.geronimo.fake ||m2assembly || 1.0-SNAPSHOT || ???
> > no idea... obviously it is supposed to be something we control...
> >
> > > activemq || activemq-core-test || 3.2 || can't trace this yet.
> > I doubt we actually need this, can you figure out what tries to  
> pull it
> > in?
> >
> > > javacc || javacc || 2.1 || [WARNING] This artifact has been  
> relocated
> > > to javax.sql:jdbc-stdext:2.0.
> > It seems to me that this must be a mistake somewhere.
> >
> > > xmlbeans || xmlbeans-jsr173-api || 2.0-dev || can't trace this  
> yet.
> > for the m1 build we are using stax/jars/stax- api-1.0.jar.   
> Again, can
> > you trace where this requirement comes from?  Is there a generic m2
> > tool to trace where missing dependencies are required?
> >
> > thanks
> > david jencks
> > >
> > >
> > > Suggestions ? Advice ?
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Prasad
> > >
> > > On 11/11/05, Brett Porter <brett.porter@gmail.com > wrote:
> > >> Hi David,
> > >>
> > >> Certainly, they should be put into the main repository (via an
> > >> evangelism issue). For the specs ones, these are probably  
> older than
> > >> trunk that has the poms - but I'd expect them to be the same or
> > >> similar - so definitely use those. They'll still need to be  
> uploaded.
> > >>
> > >> - Brett
> > >>
> > >> On 11/12/05, David Jencks < david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > On Nov 11, 2005, at 11:00 AM, Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > I'm done creating poms for the 17 modules in the attached  
> text
> > >> file.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >I was able to get some jars (same version and all) from the M1
> > >> > > repository. I need to track down the other jars.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Next I need to figure out how to create a patch from the
> > >> repository
> > >> > > jars. TortoiseSVN doesn't seem to help me there. Any tips  
> here
> > >> would
> > >> > > be appreciated.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Should I create 1 JIRA for all these 17 modules or should each
> > >> module
> > >> > > have it's own JIRA ?
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Cheers
> > >> > >Prasad
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > I'm worriedthat duplicate work is happening. The geronimo-specs
> > >> > already have an m2 build so I wouldthink they all have valid m2
> > >> poms.
> > >> > I believe jeff genender has valid activemq poms from his  
> work with
> > >> > wadi.
> > >> >
> > >> > I certainly don't know what should happen with these poms  
> now that
> > >> they
> > >> > exist.I don't think keeping them private to geronimo is  
> likely to
> > >> be
> > >> > the best practice.Should we open one issue/pom in maven
> > >> evangelism?
> > >> > Jason? Brett?
> > >> >
> > >> > thanks
> > >> > david jencks
> > >> >
> > >> >
> >
> >
>


Mime
View raw message