No commits on GitHub since 2022, the slack channel is dead silent, and it seems everyone here recommends deps.edn. Is Leiningen worth using in 2023 or should I jump ship?

​

  • seancorfield@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    tools. Build lacks support for adding project descriptions, URLs and licenses to pom files

    No, it specifically supports this now.

    it expects that you maintain a pom file in source control

    Nope. That’s never been true. It’s always been optional.

    GPG

    Fair enough. I haven’t signed JARs for years and found the whole gpg-agent thing to be a giant mess on both Mac and Windows (is it even possible on Windows?). Pretty much everyone has given up on signing at this point, I think? Clojars certainly doesn’t care any more. In other words, this feels like a straw man / moot argument.

    • weavejester@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Build lacks support for adding project descriptions, URLs and licenses to pom files

      No, it specifically supports this now.

      That’s good to hear. It looks like that functionality was only added in 2 weeks ago, though.

      it expects that you maintain a pom file in source control

      Nope. That’s never been true. It’s always been optional.

      It’s possible I misinterpreted Alex Miller’s response, but when I asked previously about how to support extra pom data (before :pom-data), that was the answer I was given: “We don’t support lots of elements as we can sync from a source pom[. ]So write the pom template with whatever you need and sync that”

      Pretty much everyone has given up on signing at this point, I think? Clojars certainly doesn’t care any more. In other words, this feels like a straw man / moot argument.

      I still sign all my packages. I mean, why not? I already have it all set up. It may be that I’m in the minority, but removing signatures would feel like a step backward.

      I’m not sure why you consider this a “straw man / moot argument”. Note that I’m not advocating people use Leiningen, I’m just stating the reasons I still use Leiningen.

      • alexdmiller@alien.topBEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        You interpreted my response correctly at the time … my mind was changed. :)

        Nobody anywhere checks the signature (and if you try using the tools provided, you’ll find out why), so signatures are largely security theater in maven world. This is bad, and we should do better. Hoping to eventually have time to work more on this, and have had some sidebars with Phil H about it.

    • gnl_@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Pretty much everyone has given up on signing at this point, I think?

      I sign all my packages (and also my release commits and tags) – the infrastructure and tools to support easy and thorough artifact verification may not exist at this point, but I’d rather see us collectively push things in that direction than give up on supply chain security altogether.

      Nope. That’s never been true. It’s always been optional.

      Maybe technically optional, but practically not so much – if you wanted to edit any metadata like project description, licenses, etc., you needed a pom.xml template file. The recent :pom-data in 0.9.6 is certainly a step forward.