this could have interesting info: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/play-framework/Td389FbdgCY/xVjGYCbJBgwJ
?
hi @debugging!
@eparejatobes, you’re right. I think this page of sbt docs is relevant: http://www.scala-sbt.org/0.13/docs/Artifacts.html#Artifacts
@eparejatobes, you’re right. I think this page of sbt docs is relevant: http://www.scala-sbt.org/0.13/docs/Artifacts.html#Artifacts
I think the links referrenced by @eparejatobes can give you an idea how to configure this
then what is left, is to set up credentials for publishing to S3 and set
publishTo as it’s written in the plugin’s readme: https://github.com/ohnosequences/sbt-s3-resolver#publishing
By the way, we’re going to release new version this week :wink:
I am using scala 2.11.6 with version 0.12.0
does this plugin work with scala 2.11 ?
this:
S3Resolver.defaults
sorry, I just updated readme for the upcoming version
0.13.0, but it's not released yet
check out this: https://github.com/ohnosequences/sbt-s3-resolver/tree/v0.12.0
Thought it might have been something like that. Thanks!
Hi @deanchen! I don't see an obvios standard way to get a credentials provider from the basic credentials, but it's easy to achieve by just implementing it's interface:
import com.amazonaws.auth._
s3credentials :=
new AWSCredentialsProvider {
def getCredentials(): AWSCredentials = new BasicAWSCredentials("bar", "buh")
def refresh(): Unit = {}
}
I hate having to bring up topics like this, but why the license choice for this repo? I totally get it for your other projects as it keeps people from profiting from your work and selling it as their own - but this project's whole point is to integrate it into likely closed source repo's (it if was open source, I wouldn't be publishing to S3, I'd just go to maven central, etc!) My concern is that in a legal battle, one might argue that my private project because it's using this project in its build.sbt file must now also be fully open source? I know the license issue is one of the big reasons the frugal mechanic project got started, but this project seems to be much more maintained and active, and I'd much rather use and contribute to it. Just wish it had a different license? I know y'all probably wont' change it, just curious the history behind the choice for this project?
no problem with the topic
so why AGPLv3
is just a matter of simplicity
we're fine with anyone selling whatever
as long as it's open too :)
anyway
for private projects
in a lot of cases AGPLv3 is not a big issue
the requirement is over users of your app
so for something internal
Yeah, I'm specifically bringing up private projects here where the project might be for some API for our business that customers hit. All the other licenses used by our API allow us to keep the project private and not share our API source to the world, but that last step in our build process of publishing this thing to a private s3 maven repo that now forces me to open source my whole API is a little disappointing because using your s3-resolver is just part of the process for the build management - I wasn't profiting off of the project for my API itself. So it's not that I really have a problem with y'all using APGLv3 for all of your other stuff, because that makes sense based on your business goals for your other intellectual work, but for a build process tool, it just kind of bugs me :smile: given that your work didn't assist in me in creating the intellectual work of what I'm trying to keep private, it only assisted in the process part of efficiently storing or retrieving my compiled work. For now, I've just being using the other library from frugal mechanic, but part of my developer soul is bleeding knowing there is a better project out there, but I can't use it :smile:
we could maybe move it to the sbt org
relicense it etc
that could be an option
Hi, thanks a ton for the useful package, but looks like this package is no longer available from your repo at https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/releases.era7.com/, is that intended?
That sounds strange, we resolve from there daily