maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Thiessen, Todd (Todd)" <>
Subject RE: Deployment of REAL source and single file artifacts
Date Wed, 28 Sep 2011 21:01:43 GMT
Ahh yes. It isn't meant for software development. It is the source you can debug through. 
I think of this as the "real" source. Your terminology threw me for a loop.

Software you development from is usually denoted as a trunk or branch that you check out from
source control. I find it unusual to download the source from a maven repository, unpack it
and start modifying it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Winnebeck []
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 4:50 PM
> To: Maven Users List
> Subject: Re: Deployment of REAL source and single file artifacts
> Well, you can't unpack that jar then run mvn, because there's no
> pom.xml in
> the root. I think there is a way to get the POM in there but it goes
> into
> META-INF. It also never seems to include files like README, COPYING,
> etc. The sources jar also doesn't have my layout with src/main/java
> etc. You
> can't compile it. You can't run Maven with it. It doesn't include
> copyright or
> license files or even Apache's own NOTICE files. You can't rebuild the
> binary
> with it (L/GPL compliance). You can't run the unit tests with it.
> So in pretty much every way I can think of, it doesn't meet the
> criteria of
> proper source code. It's a source reference jar. Wonderfully
> appropriate for
> use as reference in your favorite IDE. Completely inappropriate for
> software
> development.
> Actually when I saw Maven's repo I was very pleased because at first I
> thought
> it had solved the GPL issue like Debian did where you get a src-deb.
> But it
> didn't. The -sources.jar doesn't meet the requirements of the GPL to
> distribute that. So technically it seems to me that the typical project
> in
> maven central repository is not compliant with licenses like L/GPL
> because you
> aren't given an opportunity to download source nor a written notice to
> obtain
> the source that is capable of producing the binary. In this sense Maven
> totally missed a huge opportunity to assist people in actual, proper
> compliance where you can use maven-dependency-plugin to include
> dependency
> source. Now it is not legitimately practical to deliver a self-
> contained
> program that a user can run using Maven alone.
> Since I'm actually wanting to distribute source that I intend people to
> open
> and modify, I need an archive that has that. Anders's suggestion
> achieved that
> (based on example from Apache).
> Jason
> On 9/28/2011 4:35 PM, Thiessen, Todd (Todd) wrote:
> > It's not the sources?  Then what is it?  It's the actual source for
> any release that I have ever done ;-).  How do you define REAL source?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message