lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Muir (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (SOLR-3405) maven artifacts should be equivalent to binary packaging
Date Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:54:19 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3405?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13261688#comment-13261688
] 

Robert Muir commented on SOLR-3405:
-----------------------------------

And yes, i did suggest as a compromise that perhaps we dont even put solr in maven at all,
just lucene,
(and this issue is supposed to be even more of a compromise, that we still put solr in maven,
but package 
maven-solr up as an application just like the binary packaging). The latest suggestion is
supposed to be
even more of a compromise.

The idea behind these compromises is so that people who like maven are happy, and so that
PMC members
who don't understand maven feel comfortable with us releasing maven artifacts and these threads
about
maven don't keep popping up anymore.

Separately I do make vicious assaults on how maven works internally etc, because I think it
deserves that.
But thats unrelated to whether or not we release maven artifacts.

Of course in an ideal situation we release lucene/solr and its instantly available everywhere
in every single
packaging format in perfect shape: rpm,yum,maven,bsd/macos ports,...: we just don't have the
resources to do
all of that.

So when it comes to maven artifacts, you can expect me to be critical of it in the future,
especially when
its behavior differs from the other artifacts (like app versus API). 

None of this is an assault on the idea of us producing 'maven artifacts', none of it is saying

"i don't see the value of maven artifacts", or "maven artifacts cant do cool things", or any
of that. 

And sometimes when i say 'maven' its confusing whether i refer to 'maven the build system'
or 'maven the artifacts'.
This is because maven itself makes this confusing by conflating multiple things. Its not my
fault.

Its just trying to get this packaging stuff under control.

                
> maven artifacts should be equivalent to binary packaging
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-3405
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3405
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: Build
>            Reporter: Robert Muir
>             Fix For: 4.1
>
>
> Lets take the commons-csv scenario: 
> * apache-solr-3.5.0 binary distribution contains no actual commons-csv.jar anywhere,
>   in fact it contains no third party jars (the stuff present in solr/lib) at all.
> * binary distribution contains only the jars necessary for *solrj* and *contrib plugins*,
and a solr.war
> I think the maven artifacts should match whats in the binary release (no third party
jars 
> inside the .war are "exposed", we just publish the .war itself). This exposes a lot less
surface area.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message