lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ryan McKinley (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (SOLR-3405) maven artifacts should be equivalent to binary packaging
Date Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:00:05 GMT


Ryan McKinley commented on SOLR-3405:

We are a bit lost on what we are talking about -- I don't expect we will all agree on the
best maven strategy.

Something mentioned over an over in this thread is concern that sonatype maven central is
somehow *the* repository.  That is nonsense, there is no reason to do crazy plugins to try
to pretend stuff is there when we can just add (or suggest adding) other potential repositories.
 If we are worried about supporting the 1-off crazy patched jar, we can point it to something
as crazy as:

but I feel like i am just adding more noise to an issue without focus
> maven artifacts should be equivalent to binary packaging
> --------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: SOLR-3405
>                 URL:
>             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
> 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:!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message