You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@stanbol.apache.org by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com> on 2012/03/30 11:08:25 UTC
Release status
Hi,
I just want to inform you about the release status. Maybe you have
seen the ongoing discussion on the general mailing list about the
inclusion of binary dependencies within source release packages. Sine
we include the OWLAPI JAR in binary form, this is relevant for our
release.
As far as I did understand the arguments it is not possible to include
binaries like this. The reason is that we ship open source software
and binaries are not source. The used Maven dependencies are not part
of the release itself and are only downloaded during the build. The
difference is that the user is responsible for these downloads. Once
we include a binary in a source release, we are responsible.
I have asked on the general list what we should do now in our
situation to find out how to handle dependencies that are not
available at Maven central. Maybe we have to add a note and require
the users to download the OWLAPI JAR themselves prior being able to
compile Stanbol.
Best,
- Fabian
--
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt
Re: Release status
Posted by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
there is already this open issue for OWL API
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3514578&group_id=90989&atid=595537
I will try to add a comment and/or stress our interest in this on
their mailing list.
Best,
- Fabian
Am 3. April 2012 17:15 schrieb Alessandro Adamou <ad...@cs.unibo.it>:
> On 4/2/12 12:22 PM, Olivier Grisel wrote:
>>
>> I think the OWL-API should do the same to make handle such dependency as
>> usual. Maybe someone should get in touch with the OWL API project developers
>> and offer help in getting that done.
>
>
> I had personally spoken to Matthew Horridge in Bonn last November, and he
> told me somebody from the team (it wasn't him, perhaps Ignazio Palmisano or
> some guy from Manchester?) was scheduled to push it onto maven-central.
>
> I haven't seen updates since, so I guess it would be okay to get in touch
> with them - though someone who has experience in handling Maven repos would
> be more fitting.
>
> Alessandro
>
> --
> M.Sc. Alessandro Adamou
>
> Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna
> Department of Computer Science
> Mura Anteo Zamboni 7, 40127 Bologna - Italy
>
> Semantic Technology Laboratory (STLab)
> Institute for Cognitive Science and Technology (ISTC)
> National Research Council (CNR)
> Via Nomentana 56, 00161 Rome - Italy
>
>
> "I will give you everything, so long as you do not demand anything."
> (Ettore Petrolini, 1930)
>
> Not sent from my iSnobTechDevice
>
--
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt
Re: Release status
Posted by Alessandro Adamou <ad...@cs.unibo.it>.
On 4/2/12 12:22 PM, Olivier Grisel wrote:
> I think the OWL-API should do the same to make handle such dependency
> as usual. Maybe someone should get in touch with the OWL API project
> developers and offer help in getting that done.
I had personally spoken to Matthew Horridge in Bonn last November, and
he told me somebody from the team (it wasn't him, perhaps Ignazio
Palmisano or some guy from Manchester?) was scheduled to push it onto
maven-central.
I haven't seen updates since, so I guess it would be okay to get in
touch with them - though someone who has experience in handling Maven
repos would be more fitting.
Alessandro
--
M.Sc. Alessandro Adamou
Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna
Department of Computer Science
Mura Anteo Zamboni 7, 40127 Bologna - Italy
Semantic Technology Laboratory (STLab)
Institute for Cognitive Science and Technology (ISTC)
National Research Council (CNR)
Via Nomentana 56, 00161 Rome - Italy
"I will give you everything, so long as you do not demand anything."
(Ettore Petrolini, 1930)
Not sent from my iSnobTechDevice
Re: Release status
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Olivier Grisel <ol...@ensta.org> wrote:
> ...So I guess it's ok to include binary dependencies in the source
> release of Stanbol (even though I find it ugly :)....
For dependencies that are not (yet) in Maven central (and that we're
allowed to redistribute), another option is to distribute a separate
-dependencies archive.
-Bertrand
Re: Release status
Posted by Olivier Grisel <ol...@ensta.org>.
Le 2 avril 2012 15:10, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <me...@farewellutopia.com> a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Olivier Grisel <ol...@ensta.org>wrote:
>
>> Le 2 avril 2012 11:28, Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com> a
>> écrit :
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Reto pointed me to this document
>> >
>> > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories
>> >
>> > and since OWL-API is AL20 licensed it is a category A dependency which
>> > may be included "in both source and binary form".
>>
>> Yes but we should not include binaries in a *source* release. It would
>> be fine in a binary distribution of Stanbol.
>>
> Where does his should-level requirement comes from? For category B license
> it is actually recommended to include them only in binary form and the
> primary apache releases are always source releases.
It just made sense to me: when I fetch the source tarball of an open
source project I expect to only have the source of the project and
install the dependencies automatically seperately if the build system
can do it (e.g. maven or ivy in java or pip in python) or install the
manually (e.g. when building a C / C++ project from the source tarball
with ./configure && make && sudo make install).
However, some apache projects do have some jars shipped in their
source distrib: for instance see the content of the lib folder in the
lucene source archive
http://mirror.mkhelif.fr/apache/lucene/java/3.5.0/
So I guess it's ok to include binary dependencies in the source
release of Stanbol (even though I find it ugly :).
--
Olivier
http://twitter.com/ogrisel - http://github.com/ogrisel
Re: Release status
Posted by Reto Bachmann-Gmür <me...@farewellutopia.com>.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Olivier Grisel <ol...@ensta.org>wrote:
> Le 2 avril 2012 11:28, Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com> a
> écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > Reto pointed me to this document
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories
> >
> > and since OWL-API is AL20 licensed it is a category A dependency which
> > may be included "in both source and binary form".
>
> Yes but we should not include binaries in a *source* release. It would
> be fine in a binary distribution of Stanbol.
>
Where does his should-level requirement comes from? For category B license
it is actually recommended to include them only in binary form and the
primary apache releases are always source releases.
Cheers,
Reto
Re: Release status
Posted by Olivier Grisel <ol...@ensta.org>.
Le 2 avril 2012 11:28, Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com> a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Reto pointed me to this document
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories
>
> and since OWL-API is AL20 licensed it is a category A dependency which
> may be included "in both source and binary form".
Yes but we should not include binaries in a *source* release. It would
be fine in a binary distribution of Stanbol.
We can make the build system download such binary dependencies from a
maven repository though. I think this easiest solution would be to
push the ASL licensed OWL-API jars to maven central and then upgrade
our pom to get it from there.
Apparently, project licensed under LGPL + ASL are split into twins
artifacts to handle the license choice explicitly, for instance:
http://search.maven.org/#search|ga|1|g%3A%22jackson%22
I think the OWL-API should do the same to make handle such dependency
as usual. Maybe someone should get in touch with the OWL API project
developers and offer help in getting that done.
--
Olivier
http://twitter.com/ogrisel - http://github.com/ogrisel
Re: Release status
Posted by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
Reto pointed me to this document
http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories
and since OWL-API is AL20 licensed it is a category A dependency which
may be included "in both source and binary form".
Best,
- Fabian
Am 30. März 2012 11:08 schrieb Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> I just want to inform you about the release status. Maybe you have
> seen the ongoing discussion on the general mailing list about the
> inclusion of binary dependencies within source release packages. Sine
> we include the OWLAPI JAR in binary form, this is relevant for our
> release.
>
> As far as I did understand the arguments it is not possible to include
> binaries like this. The reason is that we ship open source software
> and binaries are not source. The used Maven dependencies are not part
> of the release itself and are only downloaded during the build. The
> difference is that the user is responsible for these downloads. Once
> we include a binary in a source release, we are responsible.
>
> I have asked on the general list what we should do now in our
> situation to find out how to handle dependencies that are not
> available at Maven central. Maybe we have to add a note and require
> the users to download the OWLAPI JAR themselves prior being able to
> compile Stanbol.
>
> Best,
> - Fabian
>
> --
> Fabian
> http://twitter.com/fctwitt
--
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt