maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hervé BOUTEMY <>
Subject Re: Maven 4.0.0
Date Sat, 04 Nov 2017 14:30:07 GMT
Le samedi 4 novembre 2017, 14:43:46 CET John Patrick a écrit :
> I've got  a few updates I feel would be useful for the next major version;
> 1) Packaging type generic 'archive', or specific zip or tar.gz
> - maybe a user property to enable zip and/or tar.gz
> 2) Packaging type generic 'application', or specific rpm or deb
> - in future could be extended for windows installers too
> Over the past 6 years I've mainly created jar, war or ear, but for
> deployment the standard is bundle it up into a tar.gz or zip, along
> with the ansible scripts or custom scripts. So I usually use pom
> packaging then adding assembly plugin, just feels strange doing that
> all the time and it might make it more simpler for everyone.
do you have some demos of such packagings?

> 3) Checksum, switch to SHA3, drop md5 and sha1. If we care about
> security, we should keep up to date with what is considered secure
> still.
checksums are checksums, not security
if you want security, don't look at checksums but at signatures

This makes me think that we should find a way to show security (with these 
signatures): I don't know precisely how, but that would definitely be useful

> 3) Debian style repo management. Instead of having a massive bucket of
> artefacts, start having repo's either based upon java class version,
> or maven major release version. Also split more than just release and
> snapshot, maybe core, plugins, general...
> Not sure exactly the best solution, but as maven central has stuff
> going back years and years. How much of the old stuff will be used for
> new projects going forward.
what's the objective?
with Linux distributions, there are compatibility issues that require 
different artifacts, and an objective to keep distro on one CD/DVD
But Java and central don't have such considerations

> Anyway, those are some of my thoughts, if their is a more formal way
> of suggesting them let me know and I'll be happy to raise them
> separately for consideration and maybe also do some pull requests for
> them.
I think the packaging ideas deserve some demos to see if something can be made 
generic enough



> John
> On 4 November 2017 at 13:18, Paul Hammant <> wrote:
> >> > *3. More pluggable dependency resolver:*
> >> 
> >> I am willing to let this be optional scope for now. May be yanked if too
> >> risky or not ready in time
> > 
> > I don't see how you can even make it optional without a pom specified way
> > of saying "not maven central, this way/place instead"
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message