> On Monday, October 24, 2011 03:52:42 PM reyman [via jogamp] wrote:
>
> >
> > Ok, so, to make this possible we need :
> >
> > (server)
> > > a script which automaticaly get/download the jar : gluegen-rt and
> jogl +
> > all natives
> > > a script which create pom.xml and push on a maven repository all
> the jar
> >
> > (client)
> > > a pom.xml with architecture description and correct dependency for
> each
> > > arch
> >
> > A post with description of architecture
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1962718/maven-and-the-jogl-library
> >
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/166895/different-dependencies-for-different-build-profiles-in-maven
> >
>
> For 'just' using JOGL via maven/pom-file, IMHO we just need:
> - generate this pom file for each deployment on jogamp (fixed URLs),
> which will
>   - simple referencing the pure-java and native-lib JARs for download
> and use
>
> We can add this pom-file generation in our deployment script (if it
> technically works this way).
> If you provide a good boilerplate for let's say jogamp-next's URL,
> I can drop it in our scripting.
> You could prep the maven dependencies according to our 'os_and_arch'
> naming convention,
> so they result in the same native JAR files/URLs.
>
> Then we may offer pom URLs as we offer our versions as described here
> http://forum.jogamp.org/New-Deployment-FHS-Filesystem-Hierarchy-Standard-td3334675.html
> for example:
> http://jogamp.org/deployment/jogamp-current/
> http://jogamp.org/deployment/jogamp-next/
> http://jogamp.org/deployment/v2.0-rc3/
>
> If you can provide a 'pom dependency family' for the base URL:
> http://jogamp.org/deployment/archive/master/gluegen_424-joal_228-jogl_526-jocl_455/
>   (due to it's native jar file utilization)
>
> I could continue maintaining it from there w/ your help / validation.
>
> > But there is another solution, imho more complicated. We get the
> build.xml
> > from jogl / gluegen and rewrite it from scratch for maven. I
> download the
> > jogl sources to see, and it seems this is a lot of work for one
> personn :s
>
> I am not a maven expert, but IMHO it's should be possible to kick off
> an ant-based build.
> However, I would not like to introduce _and_ maintain another build
> system.
> Indeed this is not just a huge effort, but also contraproductive IMHO,
> unless we switch over to a maven/pom build system completly.
> The latter is currently really not within our plan,
> so if anybody does it .. she should do it for *all* jogamp modules
> and proove it's great and working properly.
>
> ~Sven
>