maven-repo-maintainers mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Shane Isbell" <shane.isb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: adding .NET artifacts to the central repository
Date Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:44:59 GMT
I'm in agreement that we shouldn't be pushing .NET assemblies out just yet.

One area I'd like to discuss is tying together keys with group Ids. So if
someone from Apache (or where ever), compiles the artifact, they own it and
should use their own groupId for the artifact. A couple of years ago,
compiling a version of NUnit with .NET or Mono would result in an assembly
that was incompatible with DotGNU, so I had to make some tweaks to the NUnit
source to get it to work, resulting in a different artifact. I would not
want to put that up in the org.nunit namespace.

We could also do signature verification to group id before allowing the
upload.

Personally, I like the upper case on the artifact Ids, as this follows .NET
standard conventions, but it's not something I care about dictating to
people. If a project wants to put it under their own group ID (since
changing the name requires recompiling or at least modification of the
assembly), then I don't really care what they do in terms of naming the
artifact. I think in the case of the original nunit.framework class it is
already lowercase. So that's the one that would be used.

A couple of other issues we should address: requiring assemblies being
signed before loading into public repo; and looking into what meta-data we
want embedded within the assembly. I could see groupId as a meta-tag being
very useful.

Shane

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Jason van Zyl <jvanzyl@sonatype.com> wrote:

> This should go by Shane as he's probably got the most knowledge in this
> area.
>
> This stuff should not show up anywhere in the repository until it's fully
> vetted. Dan Fabulich also seemed to have some thoughts in this area.
>
> On 4-Dec-08, at 5:07 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>  Back in August, Shane, Carlos, Wendy and I agreed on a naming convention
>> for NMaven artifacts and that they should be included in the central
>> repository: http://markmail.org/message/6vzevjulw3lak3an
>>
>> I uploaded a sample repository on vmbuild, with some NUnit poms:
>> http://vmbuild.apache.org/archiva/repository/dotnet/org/nunit/NUnit.Framework/2.4.8.0/NUnit.Framework-2.4.8.0.pom
>>
>> The POM format, containing no plugins, will be compatible between the
>> different .NET tooling as long as they adhere to the same <type/> naming
>> scheme. The POM uses the one from the NMaven trunk as it concluded in the
>> incubator.
>>
>> I'd make a change to the above to take Wendy's suggestion to rename the
>> artifact nunit.framework (lowercase) and remove the final name for
>> consistency with the original download.
>>
>> If there are no final objections here I'd like to start accepting and
>> processing upload requests and documenting the conventions on the repo
>> section of the Maven site.
>>
>
> I think it's wise to use a separate repository for a few months until all
> the kinks are worked out and things land in a location that everyone is
> going to sync. None of this has been used in practice on any wide scale and
> it's highly likely something will be wrong. What happened with the Eclipse
> artifacts getting injected into central should not happen with .net.
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Brett
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> brett@apache.org
>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>
>>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder,  Apache Maven
> jason at sonatype dot com
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> To do two things at once is to do neither.
>
>  -—Publilius Syrus, Roman slave, first century B.C.
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message