Description of problem:
could you upgrade maven to 2.0.7 ?
Maven 2.0.7 is a prerequisite to continuum 1.1, that's why I need this upgrade.
Hi Benoit. I am working on this atm. The problem is that maven upgrade is quite
complicated, as it requires a host of other packages to be added/updated. The
update I am currently working on will bump maven to 2.0.8, and I am going to try
my best to get it in before the feature freeze.
Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA.
More information and reason for this action is here:
Maven 2.0.7 or higher is required for Lift (www.liftweb.net)
Please update this as quick as possible. I am willing to help if you tell me how.
Count me as another vote for pushing ahead with an updated Maven. We've run
into some subtle bugs in the 2.0.4 version and would love to be able to use the
newer version as a rpm package.
I'd need at least 2.0.6 to build jakarta-commons-compress which is necessary to build tvbrowser (tvbrowser.org).
Fedora 10 has dawned and we are still missing mvn 2.0.7+
Deepak, can you please let me know whether you are still working on this?
I have completed the initial groundwork for 2.0.8. Fernando and his team will be handling the rest and the import into Fedora. I am re-assigning accordingly.
Hi, I'd be interested in hearing the status of this. How likely is it that a more current version of Maven will make it into F11?
Echo comment #9. If manpower is a problem, could you post a list of tasks that need to be performed either here or on fedora-devel-java-list? Like others who have commented here, I need maven 2.0.6 or later to interact with my employer's repository successfully. I'm willing to lend a hand to help this effort along.
Any status update here? It would be nice to have a wiki page or tracker bugs so others know how they can help.
It's been 4 months since the last update in comment #8. What is going on? This bug is now blocking my attempt to introduce findbugs-maven-plugin into Fedora. It needs maven 2.0.7+. Could somebody working on this please give us a status update? I'm still willing to help, but I need to know what needs work.
This bug is also blocking Eclipse 3.5 update because the Jetty version we need requires maven 2.0.6+ to build. And this is the last dependency to get done before starting doing Eclipse 3.5 builds.
Hi guys, please be patient, we are trying to bootstrap a maven2 2.0.8 set of RPMs in a staging area. Yong has taken the WIP set that Deepak had and is in the second cycle of the bootstrapping (we had some plugin version conflicts, pom issues etc., as things have changed a lot in the upstream maven2). Unfortunately it is nothing that adding more people to it will happen, at least not at this moment. Once the bootstrap is done, some cleanup and some adjustments to the Requires are implemented and tested, we will start the Koji building in a separate tag that Jess will create for us (so we don't break Rawhide while it is being done). I will try and keep you guys posted on the progress by commenting on this JIRA on a weekly base. Regards to all.
Patient? The current version of mavenm in Fedora (2.0.4) is 2 years (and some days) old! And 2.0.8 which you guys are working on is old by now, too - the current stable release is 2.1.0 (after .0.9 and .0.10 were released in the meantime). I understand that this is lots of work, but maven is a really important tool and the version in Fedora should never get 2 years old.
Thanks for the update, Fernando. I understand this is a lot of work. We all look forward to a newer version of maven in Fedora.
*** Bug 499588 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Hi Deepak, Yong has just completed the bootstraping of 2.0.8 after several long weeks of work. We are now in the process of planing how to get that into Rawhide.
So that BZ should actually have this as a pre-requisite. Actually, it may be easier to go through 2.0.9 as a way to get to 2.0.10, so we probably need one in-between ;-)
Ah sorry, you're right. We need 2.0.8 as an intermediate stage first. I will re-open that 2.0.10 issue tentatively.
OK, for all that offered to help and that are package reviewers, we need people to do "Pre-Reviews" as defined in:
for several packages so we can continue with the bootstrap process.
The bugs are:
(In reply to comment #20)
> OK, for all that offered to help and that are package reviewers
Everyone who is a Fedora contributor can be a package reviewer.
If someone has time, would full reviews be helpful? Or would they just be distracting at this point and we should do only the prereviews?
Make the bug depends on all the Pre-reviews.
The packages change between the phases of the bootstrapping so you would be reviewing something not final. Also, we have urgency in getting these imported into CVS so we can start the bootstraping builds.
This is the build order prepared by Deepak. Please give priorities to the ones higher in this list so we can go and import/build them as they are processed.
b+i modello a15
-> build maven2 in bootstrap mode (--with bootstrap), install that copy
Where b+i => build and then install
I took care of the initial pre-review of the following bugs:
#500242 #500245 #500246 #500247 #500248 #500249 #500251 #500252
I took care of #500253.
I started on bug #500254, bug #500256, and bug #500257.
Also, bug #500259.
I took care of #500261, #500264, #500265.
And #500266, #500267, #500268 are ready.
Also #500269, #500270, #500271 are also ready.
I believe all of these are now either accepted for pre-review or waiting on changes from Fernando. Thanks to Alex and Jerry.
OK, I've built as many as I could (skipped pmd and itext as we have higher versions, so we will try those).
Thanks for all the pre-reviewers!
We are however now stuck on #500248 with a license problem and without that package we can't proceed (I've already asked Deepak).
I will be away, and be back in June 1st (all the others in my team are working on a product at the moment). If someone have some time and disposition and could try and disentangle the #500248 situation in the meanwhile that would be of great help.
Regards to all,
Oh, #50252 as well.
It seems we have lots of problems w.r.t. the licenses of the Plexus project.
I decided to hold on trying to respin the remaining plexus bits as well (there are 3 more in pre-review stage).
I meant #500252
I raised those licensing issues to the plexus guys in their IRC channel, but there's not been too many people in there and everyone has been idling so far. Maybe I'll get an answer later (depending on their timezones or so), but it'd be probably good if someone brought those issues to their mailing lists.
I filed a couple of jira's for plexus-cli and plexus-mail-sender upstream at codehaus.
If they are shipping it, as this is the same situation in 2.0.9, they must have either: 1) got an e-mail or something from the plexus guys clarifying license 2) Ignored or failed to notice this problem.
Thanks for filing the bugs. I guess we have to wait till someone responds.
I had some hopes I could continue the bootstrap today but it seems we are still stuck :-(
Just for the record, the upstream issue tracking is
I'm not familiar with the Maven devels, but other Apache projects tend to have developers who are very informed about licenses. My gut is that this is all going to be resolved favorably. In the meantime, one suggestion is to proceed with the bootstrap but mark packages as updates-testing. That way the interested users can help test and validate the bootstrap, but the software won't yet be shipped to a wide audience.
Even if we don't ship at all but can continue with the bootstrap that would help. There is enough time before we have to ship this and even promote Rawhide to it for us to get someone's attention at Apache and solve the license problem.
What I would need now was the creation of the cvs for plexus-cli and the others that are blocked so I could continue following Deepak's build recipe.
Forgot to mention, we will still have a full review (after some cleanups) to be done before we mass merge these maven 2.0.8 stuff into Rawhide. We can even add FIXMEs to the spec file saying the license issue must be resolved before the full review can be passed.
It would be great if proceeding with the bootstrapping while the legal issues are being resolved is acceptable. spot?
I'm extremely uncomfortable with doing that. I don't want the legal issues to get papered over.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 11 development cycle.
Changing version to '11'.
More information and reason for this action is here:
I guess F12 is our goal now :-(
The upstream licensing issues have apparently been resolved.
The recent build of 2.0.8 in rawhide lacks some deps:
Error: Missing Dependency: maven-shared-plugin-tools-java >= 2.2 is needed by package maven2-plugin-plugin-2.0.8-1.3.fc12.noarch (rawhide)
Error: Missing Dependency: maven-shared-reporting-impl is needed by package maven2-plugin-plugin-2.0.8-1.3.fc12.noarch (rawhide)
Error: Missing Dependency: maven-shared-plugin-tools-beanshell >= 2.2 is needed by package maven2-plugin-plugin-2.0.8-1.3.fc12.noarch (rawhide)
Error: Missing Dependency: maven-shared-archiver >= 2.3 is needed by package maven2-plugin-jar-2.0.8-1.3.fc12.noarch (rawhide)
Are the dependencies correct? If yes, shouldn't also the BR of maven-shared* be versioned? Can I help by resolving them somehow?
Sorry, I stupidly added some versioned deps before getting the maven-shared update finished. You can track the status of the main upgrade here:
We're *almost* finished with the remaining deps which will fix this. If this is a big deal in the mean time, we can untag the latest maven build from rawhide.
I have a build going now in non-bootstrap mode:
Now that the non-bootstrap-mode build has succeeded, I think we can close this. Thanks to all for their help. Now on to 2.2.x for Fedora 13!