On 6 Dec 06, at 11:14 PM 6 Dec 06, Brett Porter wrote:
On 07/12/2006, at 2:25 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 6 Dec 06, at 8:16 PM 6 Dec 06, Brett Porter wrote:
I generally agree with what John has said in the thread so far. I
think this is a good thing: a nice out of the box installation
Define nice? If it's an installation that is different then
something standard that users typically get then it is a not a
good thing. I can just see the threads now:
Yes, a definite downside to doing it that way and something I'd
like to see an explanation for from Carl and Deepak. However, the
converse is also true - your average Fedora user might be
frustrated that Maven's config isn't in /etc like everything else.
I highly doubt it. We've never had a single complaint about that as
most people doing Java on Redhat are doing it because it's a cost
effective Java development platform not because they are Redhat
aficionados.
I think we have far more pressing concerns then worrying about.
This is definitely not a priority for the vast majority of our
users. Releasing 2.0.5, 2.1, and plugins are definitely of more
interest I would imagine.
Sure, but we're only going to get towards that by letting people
work on the things that affect them. I'm not bumping anything off
my personal priority list for this, but I'm happy to help others
work on it if it's what they need. I don't think Carl is interested
in working on plugins :)
And there is some very tangible 2.1 benefits from this work in the
space of dependency management and offline handling if it is done
right.
Definitely those two aspects would be good, no argument there.
Everyone has lived without RPMs and I don't think we've ever had a
single request for one.
I don't remember a specific instance, but I'm sure there are some
who would like them. Either way, we need to consider Fedora as a
consumer of Maven and that they know what their users want, which
apparently is Maven bundled with Fedora.
I doubt they have asked but I would be pleasantly surprised if the
impetus was actually Maven users and not simply a desire to package
Maven up on Redhat.
That shouldn't be discounted. Honestly, I think it'd do us well to
remember that Maven isn't the centre of the universe on occasion.
Give me a break. I just don't feel this is a issue to sit on the
fence about and attempt to make everyone happy. Maven users come
first. If there was an outcry for an RPM because Maven users just
couldn't get their work done on Redhat because they didn't have an
RPM then that would be fine. But again, I seriously doubt that's the
case. It would be a complete clusterfuck having Maven work in
different ways across platforms. Maven and things like Puppet make
this possible and tenable for all users regardless of where they are.
Usability is the centre of the universe. Period.
I do know for certain we've had lots of requests from the Debian
and Gentoo crowds to be able to bootstrap from source for inclusion
in those distributions, so I don't see anything different here.
Those pale in comparison by such a vast landslide it's not even worth
mentioning on the priority list.
If it is something where a package was made and it looked the same
as we do now that's great. If it created a barrier where someone
who was using Maven on Windows and then moves to Redhat and
installs Maven as they are accustomed to and some default system
version kicks in because it's in the path first and produces
completely unexpected output then that's a bad thing.
I don't see it as a barrier. They can still do it how they used to.
If they choose to use the one that comes with Fedora then they get
the consequences of that choice, just like if they are using
Firefox and all their profile is in a new location.
We can save people a lot of pain by limiting the options.
I say hooray for things like Ruby on Rails, and the MAC which
basically say "Our driving overriding concern in the face of all else
is that when users sit down to use what we have made it will be easy
to use, consistent, robust and leverage convention to make life
simpler where possible." It's not a limitation, it's a benefit to not
allow every vendor do whatever they want with something.
If the RPM rolled out something that had the same structure as
everywhere else then fine. Limitless options at the infrastructural
level does not help anyone, it's a massive hinderance.
Anyone can knock themselves out.
Well, +1 to that :)
- Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
