[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 905 bytes --] New issue by ericonr on void-packages repository https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/24617 Description: The `apache-maven-bin` package is prebuilt, has files in `/opt`, but symlinks to its files in `/usr/bin`. On the other hand, the `apache-maven` package has compiled java stuff in `/usr/share`, requires sourcing a profile file to get access to its tools, and if `apache-maven-bin` is installed at the same time, its tools will be first in the PATH. Then, some packages have `apache-maven`, others `apache-maven-bin` in `hostmakedepends`. IMO neither of these packages really fit the proper packaging guidelines. So my questions are: - should the maven binaries become alternatives, or should `apache-maven` become the preferred provider of maven stuff? - should we move all templates to `apache-maven` (and potentially remove `apache-maven-bin`? Why is it in the repos?)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 504 bytes --] New comment by the-maldridge on void-packages repository https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/24617#issuecomment-685965726 Comment: If my memory is correct we had apache-maven-bin first but called apache-maven, and then later I added maven, and what should happen now is everyone should switch to apache-maven, and we should only use apache-maven-bin for bootstrapping. (Interestingly this is why we have ant as well, because and used to bootstrap maven but this is no longer the case).
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 270 bytes --] New comment by ericonr on void-packages repository https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/24617#issuecomment-685966496 Comment: But `apache-maven` bootstraps itself. It pulls in a pre-built version and uses it. We should totally remove `apache-maven-bin`.
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 316 bytes --] New comment by fosslinux on void-packages repository https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/24617#issuecomment-694100170 Comment: In the interest of reproducibility IMO its better to have a `-bootstrap` package or something along those lines. That way `apache-maven` bootstrap wont break every update.
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 162 bytes --] New comment by ericonr on void-packages repository https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/24617#issuecomment-694232383 Comment: Why would it break?
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 951 bytes --] Closed issue by ericonr on void-packages repository https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/issues/24617 Description: The `apache-maven-bin` package is prebuilt, has files in `/opt`, but symlinks to its files in `/usr/bin`. On the other hand, the `apache-maven` package has compiled java stuff in `/usr/share`, requires sourcing a profile file to get access to its tools, and if `apache-maven-bin` is installed at the same time, its tools will be first in the PATH anyway, so the profile doesn't really help. Then, some packages have `apache-maven`, others `apache-maven-bin` in `hostmakedepends`. IMO neither of these packages really fit the proper packaging guidelines. So my questions are: - should the maven binaries become alternatives, or should `apache-maven` become the preferred provider of maven stuff? - should we move all templates to `apache-maven` (and potentially remove `apache-maven-bin`? Why is it in the repos?)