I have been assigned to a legacy Java project, which uses several messed
up Ant buildfiles. I'm going to replace or clean up the build system as
part of project maintainance.
I read that Maven (similar to other language-specific package
management software) has been a problem for Debian for a long time
and that Debian struggles with the general Java software packaging
mentality which often ignores system wide package managers. One of the
goals for the project is to make software packaging and distribution
easier and automatic. Gentoo and Fedora seem to support Maven and Ant,
but prefer Ant. Is that also true for Debian? If so, are there any
preferred build target naming conventions, like [1]?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120323104742.GA2172@qp">http://lists.debian.org/20120323104742.GA2172@qp
03-23-2012, 10:12 AM
Sylvestre Ledru
Prefered build system
On 23/03/2012 11:47, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Hi,
I have been assigned to a legacy Java project, which uses several messed
up Ant buildfiles. I'm going to replace or clean up the build system as
part of project maintainance.
I read that Maven (similar to other language-specific package
management software) has been a problem for Debian for a long time
and that Debian struggles with the general Java software packaging
mentality which often ignores system wide package managers. One of the
goals for the project is to make software packaging and distribution
easier and automatic. Gentoo and Fedora seem to support Maven and Ant,
but prefer Ant. Is that also true for Debian? If so, are there any
preferred build target naming conventions, like [1]?
It used to be the case with Maven but it is fine to used in Debian (and
has been for a couple of years).
Sylvestre
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4F6C5A83.5060907@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4F6C5A83.5060907@debian.org
03-23-2012, 11:06 AM
Barry Hawkins
Prefered build system
On 3/23/12 6:47 AM, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
Hi,
I have been assigned to a legacy Java project, which uses several messed
up Ant buildfiles. I'm going to replace or clean up the build system as
part of project maintainance.
I read that Maven (similar to other language-specific package
management software) has been a problem for Debian for a long time
and that Debian struggles with the general Java software packaging
mentality which often ignores system wide package managers. One of the
goals for the project is to make software packaging and distribution
easier and automatic. Gentoo and Fedora seem to support Maven and Ant,
but prefer Ant. Is that also true for Debian? If so, are there any
preferred build target naming conventions, like [1]?
I can tell you that of all the projects I have worked with for years and
all those my friends work with, I have yet to find anyone who uses the
Maven that is packaged with a distribution. The common practice is to
have Ant + Ivy, Maven, or Gradle + Ivy using a repository outside the OS
package management system's own packages. Coupling a Java project to
using the Java libraries packaged with the current version of your
operating system's offerings is generally avoided, as you invariably
need a library or a version of a library that is not available.
Maven is pretty handy when you lay out your project using the
conventions that Maven chooses, but getting used to Maven's Build
Lifecycle[0] is often an adjustment. I often prefer Ant + Ivy, mostly
because Ant is so straightforward and Ivy gives me the transitive
dependency management that was always Maven's one cool feature which
made people put up with the build lifecycle hassle and the need to
create Maven plugins for even the most trivial tasks at times. You can
google "maven versus ant" to see a number of writeups about the
tradeoffs between those choices.
Regards,
--
Barry Hawkins
All Things Computed
email: barry@alltc.com
twitter: barryhawkins
blog: http://barryhawkins.com/blog
site: http://alltc.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4F6C6741.20709@alltc.com">http://lists.debian.org/4F6C6741.20709@alltc.com
03-23-2012, 11:12 AM
David Gerard
Prefered build system
On 23 March 2012 12:06, Barry Hawkins <barry@alltc.com> wrote:
> Maven is pretty handy when you lay out your project using the conventions
> that Maven chooses, but getting used to Maven's Build Lifecycle[0] is often
> an adjustment. I often prefer Ant + Ivy, mostly because Ant is so
> straightforward and Ivy gives me the transitive dependency management that
> was always Maven's one cool feature which made people put up with the build
> lifecycle hassle and the need to create Maven plugins for even the most
> trivial tasks at times. You can google "maven versus ant" to see a number of
> writeups about the tradeoffs between those choices.
> [0] -
> http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-lifecycle.html
Yes, ant vs maven is completely YMMV and neither is particularly favoured.
(to veer slightly off-topic) If your ant scripts aren't complete
rubbish and somewhat work, you can get a long way just cleaning those
up rather than rewriting them for Maven. I've been doing a few months
of this at work with great results. Ant is a horrible programming
language (as, I am told, is Maven), but can be beaten into doing
almost anything you will need.
- d.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAJ0tu1GJH8i1bnNHxMqDas3aCHJ7Ch+zfD47YfifesVoQ3cbC Q@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAJ0tu1GJH8i1bnNHxMqDas3aCHJ7Ch+zfD47YfifesVoQ3cbC Q@mail.gmail.com
Prefered build system
