[jboss-dev] Rebuilding thirdparty jars with maven

[Paul Gier]

Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
> 
> Paul Gier wrote:
>> There was some discussion recently on the Maven mailing list about 
>> synchronizing artifacts between the jboss maven repository and the 
>> central maven repository [1].  One of the main issues is how can we 
>> synchronize with the central repository when we have rebuilt 
>> thirdparty artifacts that use the same groupId and artifactId.
>>
>> Currently, we publish rebuilt artifacts with a modified version number 
>> like "1.1-brew", and then just update the POMs to point to that 
>> version.  This (usually) works nicely because Maven automatically 
>> excludes transitive dependencies on other versions of this jar.  But 
>> we can't push this back to the central maven repository with the same 
>> groupId because it didn't come from the upstream project.  So the 
>> recommendation of some Maven developers is to change the groupId 
>> (possibly prefix it with org.jboss for rebuilt thirdparty jars).
>>
>> This would be a good practice for us except for the fact that Maven's 
>> dependency management does not currently have a way to link together 
>> two groupId/artifactId combinations to say that these are two versions 
>> of the same artifact.  And that would mean more even effort to exclude 
>> dependencies.  But it might be our only choice if we want to 
>> automatically sync with the central repository in the future.
> Why do we want to sync ? Why not just provide a repository with the 
> prefixed versions and ask users if they want jboss stuff to build 
> correctly they should put this repository into the .m2settings or have 
> something similar at their own repository manager ?
> 
> /max
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-development mailing list
> jboss-development at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development

That's what we do now, anyone who wants to build our stuff needs to point to our 
repository.  The main reason for wanting to sync is that there are a lot of 
users who request it, so that they don't have to do the extra configuration of 
adding our repository, so it's just for convenience.

Yes, we could certainly start using the prefix for thirdparty artifacts that we 
rebuild/patch, and just keep these in our own repository.