[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Google
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: maven and versioned dependencies



* Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@xxxxxxxxxx> [2010-08-23 07:58]:
> Excerpts from Andrew Overholt's message of Mon Aug 16 15:33:26 +0200 2010:
> > * Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2010-08-13 16:49]:
> > > On 08/13/2010 05:50 AM, Andrew Overholt wrote:
> > > >>I would have thought that maven would complain when provided versions were not
> > > >>compatible with requested versions.
> > > >
> > > >I'm pretty sure Deepak told me that our maven patches to do the mvn-jpp,
> > > >look in /usr/share/java, etc. make it ignore versions (if you're using
> > > >mvn-jpp and not just regular mvn).
> > > >
> > > >Andrew
> > > 
> > > Intentional?  Unavoidable?  Bug?
> > 
> > Intentional AFAIK.  Deepak will be able to speak more authoritatively
> > later in the week when he's around.
> 
> I am no Deepak but in the meantime maybe I can shed some light on this
> (or at least write what I got to know about maven over the course of
> last few months).
> 
> This is indeed intentional and reason is simple. Normally we have only
> one version of each package installed. So there will probably never be
> ant-1.7 and ant-1.8 installed simultaneously unless we decide it's
> necessary to create package ant18 (or something similar).
> 
> Therefore version checks are ignored when resolving maven dependencies
> in jpp mode. Otherwise we would get tons of dependency issues
> when compiling packages with maven. Most of the time this doesn't
> cause compilation/runtime problems and if it does we update/backport
> dependencies so that all Fedora packages are able to use same versions
> of dependencies. This can sometimes be time-consuming (we have to
> update packages to use new dependencies) but then we usually offer
> these updates upstream and we don't have to do it again.
> 
> Deepak can probably get more technical or correct my assumtions, but
> this is my understanding of this situation so far.
> 


Oops, didn't see this message when I replied to parent.

Yes, you're absolutely correct. There is no technical limitation that
required us to ignore versions. It was done on purpose for the reasons
above.

Cheers,
Deepak

> -- 
> Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno
> 
> PGP: 71A1677C
> Red Hat Inc.                               http://cz.redhat.com



> --
> java-devel mailing list
> java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel

--
java-devel mailing list
java-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel


[Home]     [Fedora Legacy List]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Red Hat 9 Bible]     [Fedora Bible]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]

Powered by Linux

Google
  Web www.spinics.net