geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: Assemblies in the repo and their dependencies
Date Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:17:03 GMT
I am having trouble getting trunk to build atm, so I looked at 2.1  
first.  Right away this bit of magic in the pom failed:

<snip>
                     <execution>
                         <id>copy-framework</id>
                         <phase>process-resources</phase>
                         <goals>
                             <goal>run</goal>
                         </goals>
                         <configuration>
                             <tasks>
                                 <mkdir dir="$ 
{project.build.directory}/assembly"/>
                                 <copy todir="$ 
{project.build.directory}/assembly">
                                     <fileset dir="$ 
{project.build.directory}/unpack/geronimo-framework-${version}">
                                     </fileset>
                                 </copy>
                                 <java  
classname="org.apache.geronimo.jaxws.builder.GShellCommandRegistration"
                                       fork="yes" failonerror="true">
                                    <classpath  
refid="maven.runtime.classpath"/>
                                    <arg value="$ 
{project.build.directory}/assembly"/>
                                    <arg value="gsh-wsgen.properties"/>
                                 </java>
                             </tasks>
                         </configuration>
                     </execution
</snip>

Obviously because the antrun classpath did not pick up anything,  
easily resolved by using dependencies for this plugin (or moving to  
gmaven, still unsure if mvn can handle redef of the plugin with  
dependencies in cases like this).

Then build dies missing legal files:

<snip>
[INFO] [tools:verify-legal-files {execution: verify-legal-files}]
[INFO] Checking legal files in: geronimo-tomcat6-javaee5-2.1.5- 
SNAPSHOT-bin.zip
[INFO]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ERROR] BUILD ERROR
[INFO]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Artifact does not contain any legal files: geronimo-tomcat6- 
javaee5-2.1.5-SNAPSHOT-bin.zip

[INFO]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] For more information, run Maven with the -e switch
[INFO]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Total time: 1 minute 13 seconds
[INFO] Finished at: Thu Jun 18 20:03:26 ICT 2009
[INFO] Final Memory: 99M/177M
[INFO]  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
</snip>

So at least on 2.1 there looks to be some thing about dependency scope  
which is needed for the assembly to function.  Once I get trunk to  
build I will check there too.

--jason


On Jun 18, 2009, at 4:31 AM, David Jencks wrote:

>
> On Jun 17, 2009, at 1:36 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> Why do the assemblies in the repository have dependencies?  I  
>> realize that they are probably there to facilitate the build, but  
>> shouldn't they all be marked as <scope>provided</scope>?
>>
>> The reason I think they should be, is that when a user wants to use  
>> the geronimo-maven-plugin with the assembly -bin in the repository,  
>> before they can even download the assembly -bin, first mvn has to  
>> go resolve every single dependency which is used to build that  
>> assembly -bin.
>>
>> I think this is broken, while I can resolve by adding a tone of  
>> excludes, I think that this problem should be solved so that users  
>> can more easily consume the assembly artifacts we publish to the  
>> repository.
>>
>> Any one know how easy/feasible with the current stuff (trunk and  
>> 2.1.x) it would be to mark all dependencies as provided?
>
> Just thinking about it I don't see why it would cause problems.   
> Would you like to try it and see if the server at least builds?  If  
> there are no obvious problems I'd be fine with this change.
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>> --jason


Mime
View raw message