You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-dev@james.apache.org by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> on 2007/05/05 02:52:04 UTC
mime4j/jspf and releasable artifacts/packages
I was just trying to fix maven bits for mime4j to place correct
LICENSE/NOTICE files in the META-INF folder for the jar file and I had a
doubt on what was the most useful release packages.
After a few thoughts I end up with this choice:
1) binary jar => this is the "core" library. to be placed in the maven
repository too. (e.g: james-mime4j-0.3.jar)
2) source jar => this is a jar useful for IDEs and contains all of the
original and the *generated* java files. In particular in mime4j this
contains also the files generated by javacc/jjtree because they may be
useful while DEBUGGING in an IDE. This will end up in maven repository,
too, and must contain the LICENSE/NOTICE files too. (e.g:
james-mime4j-0.3-SNAPSHOT.jar)
3) "bin" package (zip + tar.gz): contains, inside a folder with the same
name of the archive, the binary jar, the NOTICE/LICENSE files, and a lib
folder including runtime dependencies for the library. (e.g:
james-mime4j-0.3-bin.zip)
4) "project" package (zip + tar.gz): contains, inside a folder with the
same name of the archive, the whole source tree checked out from the svn
repository, including the "stage" folder and anything else we may have
there. (e.g: james-mime4j-0.3-project.tar.gz)
WDYT?
I skipped "tar.bz" packaging by purpose: having zip and tar.gz is IMHO
already redundant enough.
Do we need any other packaging (or different) for library-products like
mime4j/jsieve/jspf ?
Maybe "src" is better than "project" as the classifier (postfix) the
package #4 ?
Stefano
PS: download clicks from google analytics:
#--------------------------------------------------------
# Profile Name: james.apache.org
# Date Range: 4/28/2007 - 5/4/2007
#--------------------------------------------------------
249 server/binaries/james-binary-2.3.1.zip
84 server/binaries/james-binary-2.3.1.tar.gz
45 server/binaries/james-2.3.0.zip
28 server/source/james-2.3.1-src.zip
20 server/source/james-2.3.1-src.tar.gz
13 server/binaries/james-MailetSDK-2.3.1.zip
12 server/source/james-with-phoenix-2.3.1-src.zip
9 server/binaries/james-2.3.0.tar.gz
4 server/source/james-2.3.0-src.zip
3 server/binaries/james-binary-2.3.1rc1.zip
3 server/source/james-with-phoenix-2.3.1-src.tar.gz
2 server/binaries/james-2.3.0.zip.asc
2 server/rc/binaries/james-binary-2.3.1.tar.gz
2 server/binaries/james-MailetSDK-2.3.1.tar.gz
1 server/rc/binaries/james-binary-2.3.1rc1.tar.gz
1 server/binaries/james-binary-2.3.1.zip.asc
1 server/binaries/james-binary-2.3.1.tar.gz.asc
1 jspf/beta/src/jspf-0.9b4-src.tar.bz2
1 jspf/beta/bin/jspf-0.9b4-bin.zip
1 server/source/james-with-phoenix-2.3.0-src.tar.gz
Some consideration:
1) binary-vs-sources 10:1
2) signature checks 1/300
3) zip-vs-tgz 3:1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: mime4j/jspf and releasable artifacts/packages
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
On 5/6/07, Norman Maurer <no...@apache.org> wrote:
> Bernd Fondermann schrieb:
> > Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> >> I skipped "tar.bz" packaging by purpose: having zip and tar.gz is IMHO
> >> already redundant enough.
> >
> > Really? Personally, I am using ZIPs most of the time. But, unzip is
> > still not available on every unix server (out-of-the-box). Also, I
> > think some unixers might think that the zip distribution is not the
> > appropriate one for them and get the feeling that their OS is not
> > supported.
> >
> > Bernd
>
> Why they should think the OS is not supported ? I think tar and gunzip
> is aviable for all unix servers. Anyway I think tar.gz is enough for
> unix/linux, but I have no problems with publish a tar.bz2 too ..
>
> bye
> Norman
sorry, I misread "tar.bz" as "tar.gz".
+1 for leaving it out.
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: mime4j/jspf and releasable artifacts/packages
Posted by Norman Maurer <no...@apache.org>.
Bernd Fondermann schrieb:
> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> I skipped "tar.bz" packaging by purpose: having zip and tar.gz is IMHO
>> already redundant enough.
>
> Really? Personally, I am using ZIPs most of the time. But, unzip is
> still not available on every unix server (out-of-the-box). Also, I
> think some unixers might think that the zip distribution is not the
> appropriate one for them and get the feeling that their OS is not
> supported.
>
> Bernd
Why they should think the OS is not supported ? I think tar and gunzip
is aviable for all unix servers. Anyway I think tar.gz is enough for
unix/linux, but I have no problems with publish a tar.bz2 too ..
bye
Norman
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: mime4j/jspf and releasable artifacts/packages
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <bf...@brainlounge.de>.
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> I skipped "tar.bz" packaging by purpose: having zip and tar.gz is IMHO
> already redundant enough.
Really? Personally, I am using ZIPs most of the time. But, unzip is
still not available on every unix server (out-of-the-box). Also, I think
some unixers might think that the zip distribution is not the
appropriate one for them and get the feeling that their OS is not supported.
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: mime4j/jspf and releasable artifacts/packages
Posted by Norman Maurer <no...@apache.org>.
Hi Stefano,
all in all im happy with your suggestions.. But i whould prefer to use
src then project ;-)
bye
Norman
Stefano Bagnara schrieb:
> I was just trying to fix maven bits for mime4j to place correct
> LICENSE/NOTICE files in the META-INF folder for the jar file and I had a
> doubt on what was the most useful release packages.
>
> After a few thoughts I end up with this choice:
>
> 1) binary jar => this is the "core" library. to be placed in the maven
> repository too. (e.g: james-mime4j-0.3.jar)
>
> 2) source jar => this is a jar useful for IDEs and contains all of the
> original and the *generated* java files. In particular in mime4j this
> contains also the files generated by javacc/jjtree because they may be
> useful while DEBUGGING in an IDE. This will end up in maven repository,
> too, and must contain the LICENSE/NOTICE files too. (e.g:
> james-mime4j-0.3-SNAPSHOT.jar)
>
> 3) "bin" package (zip + tar.gz): contains, inside a folder with the same
> name of the archive, the binary jar, the NOTICE/LICENSE files, and a lib
> folder including runtime dependencies for the library. (e.g:
> james-mime4j-0.3-bin.zip)
>
> 4) "project" package (zip + tar.gz): contains, inside a folder with the
> same name of the archive, the whole source tree checked out from the svn
> repository, including the "stage" folder and anything else we may have
> there. (e.g: james-mime4j-0.3-project.tar.gz)
>
> WDYT?
>
> I skipped "tar.bz" packaging by purpose: having zip and tar.gz is IMHO
> already redundant enough.
>
> Do we need any other packaging (or different) for library-products like
> mime4j/jsieve/jspf ?
>
> Maybe "src" is better than "project" as the classifier (postfix) the
> package #4 ?
>
> Stefano
>
> PS: download clicks from google analytics:
> #--------------------------------------------------------
> # Profile Name: james.apache.org
> # Date Range: 4/28/2007 - 5/4/2007
> #--------------------------------------------------------
> 249 server/binaries/james-binary-2.3.1.zip
> 84 server/binaries/james-binary-2.3.1.tar.gz
> 45 server/binaries/james-2.3.0.zip
> 28 server/source/james-2.3.1-src.zip
> 20 server/source/james-2.3.1-src.tar.gz
> 13 server/binaries/james-MailetSDK-2.3.1.zip
> 12 server/source/james-with-phoenix-2.3.1-src.zip
> 9 server/binaries/james-2.3.0.tar.gz
> 4 server/source/james-2.3.0-src.zip
> 3 server/binaries/james-binary-2.3.1rc1.zip
> 3 server/source/james-with-phoenix-2.3.1-src.tar.gz
> 2 server/binaries/james-2.3.0.zip.asc
> 2 server/rc/binaries/james-binary-2.3.1.tar.gz
> 2 server/binaries/james-MailetSDK-2.3.1.tar.gz
> 1 server/rc/binaries/james-binary-2.3.1rc1.tar.gz
> 1 server/binaries/james-binary-2.3.1.zip.asc
> 1 server/binaries/james-binary-2.3.1.tar.gz.asc
> 1 jspf/beta/src/jspf-0.9b4-src.tar.bz2
> 1 jspf/beta/bin/jspf-0.9b4-bin.zip
> 1 server/source/james-with-phoenix-2.3.0-src.tar.gz
>
> Some consideration:
> 1) binary-vs-sources 10:1
> 2) signature checks 1/300
> 3) zip-vs-tgz 3:1
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>
>
> !DSPAM:1,463bd56f79381167816463!
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org