You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ofbiz.apache.org by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com> on 2012/11/15 17:54:57 UTC
Re: Is it a good time to remove the "debian" folder?
This is now completed at rev. 1409880
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Attic
Jacopo
On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:09 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> ... the removal will be documented, as usual, in the "Attic" page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Attic
>
> Jacopo
Re: Is it a good time to remove the "debian" folder?
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
On 11/15/2012 11:49 AM, Adam Heath wrote:
> 4: Start filing issue trees in jira for pure upstream work. This
> would include things like removing embedded libraries(maybe a
> post-download kinda thing).
(responding to myself).
Debian-policy says that any upload to main(and therefore is DFSG),
must *only* be source. No pre-compiled stuff. This is what is meant
by the 'preferred form for modification' aspect of licenses.
Pre-compiled embedded jars in the *source* upload run afowl of that.
To fix that, obviously means the source upload of ofbiz into debian
will not contain the jars. It would actually be ok for the svn repo
itself to contain the jars, but then the zip/tarball I would download
from some webpage should not contain them. Being able to use an
upstream download directly, means that the md5sum(or other hash) would
match upstream, and it's easier to verify what has and has not been
changed.
However, now that the jars have been removed, ofbiz doesn't magically
stop requiring them. So, somehow they have to be made available.
That requires making debian packages of *all* the other projects,
going back to the original *source* and compiling them, etc. And
again following this no-precompiled-rule recursively thru all of the
dependants.
Re: Is it a good time to remove the "debian" folder?
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Adam Heath wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 10:54 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> This is now completed at rev. 1409880
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Attic
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:09 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>>> ... the removal will be documented, as usual, in the "Attic" page:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Attic
>
> Hmm, sad. I understand the reasoning, and I've been super busy at
> work, and missed both the original email and this final one. Ean had
> to poke me about it.
>
> The debian folder *does* function, and will produce proper
> debian-policy-compliant debs. The only reason you don't see it
> uploaded to debian.org(I am also a debian developer, or used to be),
> is that ofbiz embeds outside libraries in side it, and that is not
> allowed for an upload to debian main.
>
> I'd like to keep this around, but I also understand the desire to keep
> ofbiz upstream clean. Here are my thoughts, based on a discussion Ean
> and I *just* had here at work.
>
> 1: Create a fork of ofbiz on github. Git is much better for
> distributed development.
> 2: Re-add this debian folder from the attic.
> 3: Import any changes I might have locally. This should be small, as
> I was mostly upstream(I need to check a few older branches).
> 3: Announce this branch as the location for debian development.
> *Only* changes to make debian integration should be placed here.
> 4: Start filing issue trees in jira for pure upstream work. This
> would include things like removing embedded libraries(maybe a
> post-download kinda thing).
+1, this sounds good to me, and could be an example on how to build from Apache Extra components (the other way would be to use Neogia "addons")
Jacques
Re: Is it a good time to remove the "debian" folder?
Posted by Olivier Heintz <ho...@nereide.biz>.
Hi Adam,
If you think that for visibility, it's good to create a ofbiz-debian
project on ofbiz-extra, I can do it until you have time to manage it.
Olivier
Le 16/11/2012 10:41, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit :
> Hi Adam,
>
> glad to see you back.
>
> First of all an off topic (I apologize for it but I ): the guy at Freemarker.org is still waiting for your CLA that is necessary to include your patch into the next Freemarker release (we are currently using a Freemarker jar modified by you and we should fix it asap); please get in touch with him and/or resend the CLA when you can. Thank you.
>
> As regards the debian folder, I am sure it was working but it is also true that it is a very specific component and that no one in this community (apart you) showed interest or even attempted to maintain it (I am sure no one apart from you would be able to): these are all good reasons for moving it out to the official trunk and releases; however I see it a good tool that you could provide distribute outside of the official project.
> You can think of the best way to do this (it seems you already have some) but I also want to mention (since you are very busy) that there is no rush as the component was stale for a long time and we could bring it back into the future if/when the community will show an interest on it.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
>
> On Nov 15, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> On 11/15/2012 10:54 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> This is now completed at rev. 1409880
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Attic
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:09 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... the removal will be documented, as usual, in the "Attic" page:
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Attic
>> Hmm, sad. I understand the reasoning, and I've been super busy at
>> work, and missed both the original email and this final one. Ean had
>> to poke me about it.
>>
>> The debian folder *does* function, and will produce proper
>> debian-policy-compliant debs. The only reason you don't see it
>> uploaded to debian.org(I am also a debian developer, or used to be),
>> is that ofbiz embeds outside libraries in side it, and that is not
>> allowed for an upload to debian main.
>>
>> I'd like to keep this around, but I also understand the desire to keep
>> ofbiz upstream clean. Here are my thoughts, based on a discussion Ean
>> and I *just* had here at work.
>>
>> 1: Create a fork of ofbiz on github. Git is much better for
>> distributed development.
>> 2: Re-add this debian folder from the attic.
>> 3: Import any changes I might have locally. This should be small, as
>> I was mostly upstream(I need to check a few older branches).
>> 3: Announce this branch as the location for debian development.
>> *Only* changes to make debian integration should be placed here.
>> 4: Start filing issue trees in jira for pure upstream work. This
>> would include things like removing embedded libraries(maybe a
>> post-download kinda thing).
>
Re: Is it a good time to remove the "debian" folder?
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
Bump
Jacques
Adam Heath wrote:
> On 11/21/2012 12:28 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> Could you please verify this with Daniel? He asked me to which address you sent it (US or Hungary)...
>
> I've already sent him a heads up. I don't know where it was sent, and
> the lady who would have the records is out of the office today.
Re: Is it a good time to remove the "debian" folder?
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
On 11/21/2012 12:28 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> Could you please verify this with Daniel? He asked me to which address you sent it (US or Hungary)...
I've already sent him a heads up. I don't know where it was sent, and
the lady who would have the records is out of the office today.
Re: Is it a good time to remove the "debian" folder?
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Could you please verify this with Daniel? He asked me to which address you sent it (US or Hungary)...
Thank you,
Jacopo
On Nov 20, 2012, at 11:25 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
> On 11/16/2012 04:24 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> I don't think that the comment is about the license clearance: yesterday I had an email exchange with Daniel Dekany (ddekany) and he is still waiting for the CLA.
>
> Well, that's odd. I just checked our records, and I signed a CLA on
> 2012-05-21, and it was mailed the same day. We keep a copy of all
> such agreements, so it looks like this got dropped on their end.
Re: Is it a good time to remove the "debian" folder?
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
On 11/16/2012 04:24 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> I don't think that the comment is about the license clearance: yesterday I had an email exchange with Daniel Dekany (ddekany) and he is still waiting for the CLA.
Well, that's odd. I just checked our records, and I signed a CLA on
2012-05-21, and it was mailed the same day. We keep a copy of all
such agreements, so it looks like this got dropped on their end.
Re: Is it a good time to remove the "debian" folder?
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
I don't think that the comment is about the license clearance: yesterday I had an email exchange with Daniel Dekany (ddekany) and he is still waiting for the CLA.
Jacopo
On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:08 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> I thought it was ok from ddekany's last comment http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100794&aid=3527625&group_id=794 ?
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>> glad to see you back.
>>
>> First of all an off topic (I apologize for it but I ): the guy at Freemarker.org is still waiting for your CLA that is necessary to include your patch into the next Freemarker release (we are currently using a Freemarker jar modified by you and we should fix it asap); please get in touch with him and/or resend the CLA when you can. Thank you.
>>
>> As regards the debian folder, I am sure it was working but it is also true that it is a very specific component and that no one in this community (apart you) showed interest or even attempted to maintain it (I am sure no one apart from you would be able to): these are all good reasons for moving it out to the official trunk and releases; however I see it a good tool that you could provide distribute outside of the official project.
>> You can think of the best way to do this (it seems you already have some) but I also want to mention (since you are very busy) that there is no rush as the component was stale for a long time and we could bring it back into the future if/when the community will show an interest on it.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>>
>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/15/2012 10:54 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>> This is now completed at rev. 1409880
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Attic
>>>>
>>>> Jacopo
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:09 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... the removal will be documented, as usual, in the "Attic" page:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Attic
>>>
>>> Hmm, sad. I understand the reasoning, and I've been super busy at
>>> work, and missed both the original email and this final one. Ean had
>>> to poke me about it.
>>>
>>> The debian folder *does* function, and will produce proper
>>> debian-policy-compliant debs. The only reason you don't see it
>>> uploaded to debian.org(I am also a debian developer, or used to be),
>>> is that ofbiz embeds outside libraries in side it, and that is not
>>> allowed for an upload to debian main.
>>>
>>> I'd like to keep this around, but I also understand the desire to keep
>>> ofbiz upstream clean. Here are my thoughts, based on a discussion Ean
>>> and I *just* had here at work.
>>>
>>> 1: Create a fork of ofbiz on github. Git is much better for
>>> distributed development.
>>> 2: Re-add this debian folder from the attic.
>>> 3: Import any changes I might have locally. This should be small, as
>>> I was mostly upstream(I need to check a few older branches).
>>> 3: Announce this branch as the location for debian development.
>>> *Only* changes to make debian integration should be placed here.
>>> 4: Start filing issue trees in jira for pure upstream work. This
>>> would include things like removing embedded libraries(maybe a
>>> post-download kinda thing).
>>
>>
Re: Is it a good time to remove the "debian" folder?
Posted by Jacques Le Roux <ja...@les7arts.com>.
I thought it was ok from ddekany's last comment http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=100794&aid=3527625&group_id=794 ?
Jacques
From: "Jacopo Cappellato" <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>
> Hi Adam,
>
> glad to see you back.
>
> First of all an off topic (I apologize for it but I ): the guy at Freemarker.org is still waiting for your CLA that is necessary to include your patch into the next Freemarker release (we are currently using a Freemarker jar modified by you and we should fix it asap); please get in touch with him and/or resend the CLA when you can. Thank you.
>
> As regards the debian folder, I am sure it was working but it is also true that it is a very specific component and that no one in this community (apart you) showed interest or even attempted to maintain it (I am sure no one apart from you would be able to): these are all good reasons for moving it out to the official trunk and releases; however I see it a good tool that you could provide distribute outside of the official project.
> You can think of the best way to do this (it seems you already have some) but I also want to mention (since you are very busy) that there is no rush as the component was stale for a long time and we could bring it back into the future if/when the community will show an interest on it.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jacopo
>
>
> On Nov 15, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> On 11/15/2012 10:54 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>> This is now completed at rev. 1409880
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Attic
>>>
>>> Jacopo
>>>
>>> On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:09 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... the removal will be documented, as usual, in the "Attic" page:
>>>>
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Attic
>>
>> Hmm, sad. I understand the reasoning, and I've been super busy at
>> work, and missed both the original email and this final one. Ean had
>> to poke me about it.
>>
>> The debian folder *does* function, and will produce proper
>> debian-policy-compliant debs. The only reason you don't see it
>> uploaded to debian.org(I am also a debian developer, or used to be),
>> is that ofbiz embeds outside libraries in side it, and that is not
>> allowed for an upload to debian main.
>>
>> I'd like to keep this around, but I also understand the desire to keep
>> ofbiz upstream clean. Here are my thoughts, based on a discussion Ean
>> and I *just* had here at work.
>>
>> 1: Create a fork of ofbiz on github. Git is much better for
>> distributed development.
>> 2: Re-add this debian folder from the attic.
>> 3: Import any changes I might have locally. This should be small, as
>> I was mostly upstream(I need to check a few older branches).
>> 3: Announce this branch as the location for debian development.
>> *Only* changes to make debian integration should be placed here.
>> 4: Start filing issue trees in jira for pure upstream work. This
>> would include things like removing embedded libraries(maybe a
>> post-download kinda thing).
>
>
Re: Is it a good time to remove the "debian" folder?
Posted by Jacopo Cappellato <ja...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Hi Adam,
glad to see you back.
First of all an off topic (I apologize for it but I ): the guy at Freemarker.org is still waiting for your CLA that is necessary to include your patch into the next Freemarker release (we are currently using a Freemarker jar modified by you and we should fix it asap); please get in touch with him and/or resend the CLA when you can. Thank you.
As regards the debian folder, I am sure it was working but it is also true that it is a very specific component and that no one in this community (apart you) showed interest or even attempted to maintain it (I am sure no one apart from you would be able to): these are all good reasons for moving it out to the official trunk and releases; however I see it a good tool that you could provide distribute outside of the official project.
You can think of the best way to do this (it seems you already have some) but I also want to mention (since you are very busy) that there is no rush as the component was stale for a long time and we could bring it back into the future if/when the community will show an interest on it.
Kind regards,
Jacopo
On Nov 15, 2012, at 6:49 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 10:54 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> This is now completed at rev. 1409880
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Attic
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:09 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>
>>> ... the removal will be documented, as usual, in the "Attic" page:
>>>
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Attic
>
> Hmm, sad. I understand the reasoning, and I've been super busy at
> work, and missed both the original email and this final one. Ean had
> to poke me about it.
>
> The debian folder *does* function, and will produce proper
> debian-policy-compliant debs. The only reason you don't see it
> uploaded to debian.org(I am also a debian developer, or used to be),
> is that ofbiz embeds outside libraries in side it, and that is not
> allowed for an upload to debian main.
>
> I'd like to keep this around, but I also understand the desire to keep
> ofbiz upstream clean. Here are my thoughts, based on a discussion Ean
> and I *just* had here at work.
>
> 1: Create a fork of ofbiz on github. Git is much better for
> distributed development.
> 2: Re-add this debian folder from the attic.
> 3: Import any changes I might have locally. This should be small, as
> I was mostly upstream(I need to check a few older branches).
> 3: Announce this branch as the location for debian development.
> *Only* changes to make debian integration should be placed here.
> 4: Start filing issue trees in jira for pure upstream work. This
> would include things like removing embedded libraries(maybe a
> post-download kinda thing).
Re: Is it a good time to remove the "debian" folder?
Posted by Adam Heath <do...@brainfood.com>.
On 11/15/2012 10:54 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> This is now completed at rev. 1409880
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Attic
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 8:09 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>
>> ... the removal will be documented, as usual, in the "Attic" page:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Attic
Hmm, sad. I understand the reasoning, and I've been super busy at
work, and missed both the original email and this final one. Ean had
to poke me about it.
The debian folder *does* function, and will produce proper
debian-policy-compliant debs. The only reason you don't see it
uploaded to debian.org(I am also a debian developer, or used to be),
is that ofbiz embeds outside libraries in side it, and that is not
allowed for an upload to debian main.
I'd like to keep this around, but I also understand the desire to keep
ofbiz upstream clean. Here are my thoughts, based on a discussion Ean
and I *just* had here at work.
1: Create a fork of ofbiz on github. Git is much better for
distributed development.
2: Re-add this debian folder from the attic.
3: Import any changes I might have locally. This should be small, as
I was mostly upstream(I need to check a few older branches).
3: Announce this branch as the location for debian development.
*Only* changes to make debian integration should be placed here.
4: Start filing issue trees in jira for pure upstream work. This
would include things like removing embedded libraries(maybe a
post-download kinda thing).