You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Jörg Reiher <re...@esteam.de> on 2008/09/16 13:37:26 UTC
[VOTE] apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubating and apache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubating release
Hello,
the community has approved a release of apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubating and apache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubating.
Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation Policy we would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC to make the release.
Release proposal:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-empire-db-dev/200809.mbox/%3C0864536CC6E70F4F9FF85DE7334908CC07C119@esteams1.esteam.local%3E
Vote result:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-empire-db-dev/200809.mbox/%3C0864536CC6E70F4F9FF85DE7334908CC07C123@esteams1.esteam.local%3E
My vote is
+1 (non binding)
Joerg
Re: [VOTE] apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubating
andapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubating release
Posted by Thomas Fischer <tf...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, Rainer Döbele wrote:
>
> With the struts-extentions we're in a dilemma. It won't build without
> servlet-api.jar and jsp-api.jar. There is an info file that informs the
> user about the requirement for these two jars.
Can you point this file out to me ? I am too stupid to find it in
apache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubating.tar.gz
Cheers,
Thomas
Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 24/09/2008, Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 13:54 +0100, sebb wrote:
>
>
> > It's a pity that the Tomcat jars don't contain proper manifests + N &
> > L files; I'll see about raising that with the Tomcat developers.
>
>
> Huh, what?
>
> On my freshly downloaded apache tomcat 5.5.27, the servlet API contains
>
>
> Specification-Title: Java API for Servlets
> Specification-Version: 2.4
> Specification-Vendor: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> Implementation-Title: javax.servlet
> Implementation-Version: 2.4.public_draft
> Implementation-Vendor: Apache Software Foundation
>
>
> and the jsp API contains
>
> Specification-Title: Java API for JavaServer Pages
> Specification-Version: 2.0
>
> Specification-Vendor: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
> Implementation-Title: javax.servlet.jsp
> Implementation-Version: 2.0.public_draft
>
> Implementation-Vendor: Apache Software Foundation
>
>
> which clearly states what these files are, who built them and what they
> implement. I'd even say that Tomcat is a fine example of compliance here
> (I assume that the TCK tests this).
Sorry, you're right (I must have been looking at the wrong zip) -
however they don't have N & L files.
The jars in 6.0.18 don't have N & L or the Manifest entries show above.
Looks like there is a problem with the 6.0 packaging.
> Ciao
>
> Henning
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re:
[VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 13:54 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 22/09/2008, Thomas Fischer <tf...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd reckon that we all now agree that the tomcat jars can be included.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Assuming that they have not included the jars incorrectly.
> > >
> >
> > I will check that the jars in question are those released by tomcat.
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps it would be better to double-check with legal?
> > >
> >
> > If the jars are ASL licensed, I do not see the need. Correct me if I'm
> > wrong.
> >
>
> What I meant was - just because the jars are part of another Apache
> product does not necessarily mean that they are ASL licensed. One
> would hope that they are, but given some of the other postings in this
> thread I though it would be prudent to double-check this.
While I appreciate your concern and you are right, that you can not
simply take a jar from another Apache project and assume it is AL
licensed (you do can assume that you can bundle it with your project
and, as long as you have appropriate NOTICE and LICENSE.txt entries, you
can ship the result under AL. That is what our license is all about
BTW... :-) ), in this case, the servlet-api jar is built from
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/servletapi/tags/servlet2.4-jsp2.0-tc5.x/TOMCAT_5_5_27/jsr154
and the JSP API jar is built from
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/tomcat/servletapi/tags/servlet2.4-jsp2.0-tc5.x/TOMCAT_5_5_27/jsr152
Please, can we lay this to rest? Thanks. :-)
Ciao
Henning
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: preparing empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubating release
candidate 2
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
Right. you need
This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
in NOTICE
and the AL 2.0 in LICENSE.txt, which you both already have.
Ciao
Henning
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 22:43 +0200, Rainer Döbele wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I have now changed to release build script once again so it will put the two tomcat jars back into the empire-struts2-ext distribution. I have taken the servlet-api.jar and jsp-api.jar from the apache-tomcat-5.5.27 distribution to make sure we have the latest version.
>
> Just to double check: Is it correct, that we do not need to provide additional licensing information in our notice or license file? (In fact I could not find any templates that would give me a hint about what exactly to add).
>
> Thanks.
> Rainer
>
>
> > On 22/09/2008, Thomas Fischer <tf...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I'd reckon that we all now agree that the tomcat jars can be included.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Assuming that they have not included the jars incorrectly.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I will check that the jars in question are those released by tomcat.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Perhaps it would be better to double-check with legal?
> >>>
> >>
> >> If the jars are ASL licensed, I do not see the need. Correct me if I'm
> >> wrong.
> >>
> >
> > What I meant was - just because the jars are part of another Apache
> > product does not necessarily mean that they are ASL licensed. One
> > would hope that they are, but given some of the other postings in this
> > thread I though it would be prudent to double-check this.
> >
> > I just checked the jsp-api and servlet-api jars from Tomcat 5.5.27 and
> > 6.0.18; unfortunately the jars themselves do not contain NOTICE or
> > LICENSE files, and the jar manifests are no help either - it's not
> > clear where the jars originated.
> >
> > However, looking at the source archives for Tomcat, one can see that
> > the sources for the two jars are present, so it looks like the jars
> > are indeed created from Tomcat sources, not copies of the Sun jars. I
> > looked a a few of the source files, and these have standard AL2.0
> > headers. So it looks OK to use the jars from Tomcat, as they don't
> > appear to be the Sun jars.
> >
> > It's a pity that the Tomcat jars don't contain proper manifests + N &
> > L files; I'll see about raising that with the Tomcat developers.
> >
>
> Thanks for checking. I was assuming that the tomcat people know what they
> are doing.
>
> Thomas
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
preparing empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubating release candidate 2
Posted by Rainer Döbele <do...@esteam.de>.
Hi Thomas,
I have now changed to release build script once again so it will put the two tomcat jars back into the empire-struts2-ext distribution. I have taken the servlet-api.jar and jsp-api.jar from the apache-tomcat-5.5.27 distribution to make sure we have the latest version.
Just to double check: Is it correct, that we do not need to provide additional licensing information in our notice or license file? (In fact I could not find any templates that would give me a hint about what exactly to add).
Thanks.
Rainer
> On 22/09/2008, Thomas Fischer <tf...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd reckon that we all now agree that the tomcat jars can be included.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Assuming that they have not included the jars incorrectly.
>>>
>>
>> I will check that the jars in question are those released by tomcat.
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps it would be better to double-check with legal?
>>>
>>
>> If the jars are ASL licensed, I do not see the need. Correct me if I'm
>> wrong.
>>
>
> What I meant was - just because the jars are part of another Apache
> product does not necessarily mean that they are ASL licensed. One
> would hope that they are, but given some of the other postings in this
> thread I though it would be prudent to double-check this.
>
> I just checked the jsp-api and servlet-api jars from Tomcat 5.5.27 and
> 6.0.18; unfortunately the jars themselves do not contain NOTICE or
> LICENSE files, and the jar manifests are no help either - it's not
> clear where the jars originated.
>
> However, looking at the source archives for Tomcat, one can see that
> the sources for the two jars are present, so it looks like the jars
> are indeed created from Tomcat sources, not copies of the Sun jars. I
> looked a a few of the source files, and these have standard AL2.0
> headers. So it looks OK to use the jars from Tomcat, as they don't
> appear to be the Sun jars.
>
> It's a pity that the Tomcat jars don't contain proper manifests + N &
> L files; I'll see about raising that with the Tomcat developers.
>
Thanks for checking. I was assuming that the tomcat people know what they
are doing.
Thomas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by Thomas Fischer <tf...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, sebb wrote:
> On 22/09/2008, Thomas Fischer <tf...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd reckon that we all now agree that the tomcat jars can be included.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Assuming that they have not included the jars incorrectly.
>>>
>>
>> I will check that the jars in question are those released by tomcat.
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps it would be better to double-check with legal?
>>>
>>
>> If the jars are ASL licensed, I do not see the need. Correct me if I'm
>> wrong.
>>
>
> What I meant was - just because the jars are part of another Apache
> product does not necessarily mean that they are ASL licensed. One
> would hope that they are, but given some of the other postings in this
> thread I though it would be prudent to double-check this.
>
> I just checked the jsp-api and servlet-api jars from Tomcat 5.5.27 and
> 6.0.18; unfortunately the jars themselves do not contain NOTICE or
> LICENSE files, and the jar manifests are no help either - it's not
> clear where the jars originated.
>
> However, looking at the source archives for Tomcat, one can see that
> the sources for the two jars are present, so it looks like the jars
> are indeed created from Tomcat sources, not copies of the Sun jars. I
> looked a a few of the source files, and these have standard AL2.0
> headers. So it looks OK to use the jars from Tomcat, as they don't
> appear to be the Sun jars.
>
> It's a pity that the Tomcat jars don't contain proper manifests + N &
> L files; I'll see about raising that with the Tomcat developers.
>
Thanks for checking. I was assuming that the tomcat people know what they
are doing.
Thomas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re:
[VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 13:54 +0100, sebb wrote:
> It's a pity that the Tomcat jars don't contain proper manifests + N &
> L files; I'll see about raising that with the Tomcat developers.
Huh, what?
On my freshly downloaded apache tomcat 5.5.27, the servlet API contains
Specification-Title: Java API for Servlets
Specification-Version: 2.4
Specification-Vendor: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Implementation-Title: javax.servlet
Implementation-Version: 2.4.public_draft
Implementation-Vendor: Apache Software Foundation
and the jsp API contains
Specification-Title: Java API for JavaServer Pages
Specification-Version: 2.0
Specification-Vendor: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Implementation-Title: javax.servlet.jsp
Implementation-Version: 2.0.public_draft
Implementation-Vendor: Apache Software Foundation
which clearly states what these files are, who built them and what they
implement. I'd even say that Tomcat is a fine example of compliance here
(I assume that the TCK tests this).
Ciao
Henning
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 22/09/2008, Thomas Fischer <tf...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I'd reckon that we all now agree that the tomcat jars can be included.
> > >
> >
> > Assuming that they have not included the jars incorrectly.
> >
>
> I will check that the jars in question are those released by tomcat.
>
>
> > Perhaps it would be better to double-check with legal?
> >
>
> If the jars are ASL licensed, I do not see the need. Correct me if I'm
> wrong.
>
What I meant was - just because the jars are part of another Apache
product does not necessarily mean that they are ASL licensed. One
would hope that they are, but given some of the other postings in this
thread I though it would be prudent to double-check this.
I just checked the jsp-api and servlet-api jars from Tomcat 5.5.27 and
6.0.18; unfortunately the jars themselves do not contain NOTICE or
LICENSE files, and the jar manifests are no help either - it's not
clear where the jars originated.
However, looking at the source archives for Tomcat, one can see that
the sources for the two jars are present, so it looks like the jars
are indeed created from Tomcat sources, not copies of the Sun jars. I
looked a a few of the source files, and these have standard AL2.0
headers. So it looks OK to use the jars from Tomcat, as they don't
appear to be the Sun jars.
It's a pity that the Tomcat jars don't contain proper manifests + N &
L files; I'll see about raising that with the Tomcat developers.
>
> Thomas
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by Thomas Fischer <tf...@apache.org>.
>> I'd reckon that we all now agree that the tomcat jars can be included.
>
> Assuming that they have not included the jars incorrectly.
I will check that the jars in question are those released by tomcat.
> Perhaps it would be better to double-check with legal?
If the jars are ASL licensed, I do not see the need. Correct me if I'm
wrong.
Thomas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 22/09/2008, Thomas Fischer <tf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
>
> > Well, IMHO you simply erred on the servlet-api / jsp-api thing
> > (empire-db, as an AL 2.0 licensed project is obviously free to include
> > the jars from Apache tomcat, an AL 2.0 licensed project. The LICENSE and
> > NOTICE files from Tomcat state that these files are under AL 2.0).
> >
>
> True. I did not realize the jars are from tomcat, sorry for that. But, on
> the other hand, nobody told me.
>
>
> > And, BTW, according to
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html, the
> > CDDL 1.0 is part of the "B" list, which means, you can even bundle the
> > unmodified binary archives, as long as you put appropriate documentation
> > into LICENSE and NOTICE.
> >
>
> This is also required by the license. But it was not done in the release
> candidate in question.
>
> I'd reckon that we all now agree that the tomcat jars can be included.
>
Assuming that they have not included the jars incorrectly.
Perhaps it would be better to double-check with legal?
> Thomas
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by Thomas Fischer <tf...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Well, IMHO you simply erred on the servlet-api / jsp-api thing
> (empire-db, as an AL 2.0 licensed project is obviously free to include
> the jars from Apache tomcat, an AL 2.0 licensed project. The LICENSE and
> NOTICE files from Tomcat state that these files are under AL 2.0).
True. I did not realize the jars are from tomcat, sorry for that. But, on
the other hand, nobody told me.
> And, BTW, according to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html, the
> CDDL 1.0 is part of the "B" list, which means, you can even bundle the
> unmodified binary archives, as long as you put appropriate documentation
> into LICENSE and NOTICE.
This is also required by the license. But it was not done in the release
candidate in question.
I'd reckon that we all now agree that the tomcat jars can be included.
Thomas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by Thomas Fischer <tf...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Well, IMHO you simply erred on the servlet-api / jsp-api thing
> (empire-db, as an AL 2.0 licensed project is obviously free to include
> the jars from Apache tomcat, an AL 2.0 licensed project. The LICENSE and
> NOTICE files from Tomcat state that these files are under AL 2.0).
True. I did not realize the jars are from tomcat, sorry for that. But, on
the other hand, nobody told me.
> And, BTW, according to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html, the
> CDDL 1.0 is part of the "B" list, which means, you can even bundle the
> unmodified binary archives, as long as you put appropriate documentation
> into LICENSE and NOTICE.
This is also required by the license. But it was not done in the release
candidate in question.
I'd reckon that we all now agree that the tomcat jars can be included.
Thomas
Re:
[VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
And especially, please remember that a vote on the empire-db-dev list or
even on empire-db-private is not enough to do any podling release.
A podling release *must* be approved by the incubator PMC (see
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html). Before that,
it is not a release.
Ciao
Henning
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 07:48 +0000, Thomas Fischer wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Rainer Dbele wrote:
>
> > looks like we're running in circles with that struts2 extentions
> > release. Partially it is probably my own fault since I did not question
> > Thomas' findings but I must say I am not really fond of all these legal
> > issues.
>
> Nobody is fond of that. But, if you want people to respect your own
> license, you better respect other people's licenses.
>
> > Personally I would really like to bundle the servlet-api and jsp-api in
> > order to have a nice clean and easy build process. I am also willing to
> > change the release build scripts once again.
>
> I have no problem with including the tomcat libraries.
>
> > However I would like everyone to acknolege that the process of making a
> > release build, uploading it, calling for vote on the dev-list, wainting
> > or 72 hours, posting the result, calling for voting on the general list,
> > ... is quite a tedious task and costs Jrg and me a lot of time.
> >
> > I would really appreciate if anyone who want's to check the release
> > would do this, while we're voting on the empire-db-dev list and not
> > leave it until we're on the general-incubator list. This would make life
> > for us a lot easier.
>
> I would also rather like to check the release while the vote is on
> empire-db-dev. But then the 72 hours is way too short. Remember that the
> mentors are non-paid volunteers and are doing the review in their spare
> time, and it also costs us a lot of time. If we do not have time in two
> successive evenings, the vote is closed. I'd appreciate a 7 days voting
> period.
>
> > We have run though this whole process three times now, and we still have
> > no binding positive votes for the struts2-extentions yet. If there are
> > any objections with what we currently offer as the release we should
> > really discuss and resolve them before our next attempt.
>
> It does not build by default, and there is no documentation on how to
> build it (at least I did not find it, and though I asked it [1] nobody
> pointed it out, so I assume that it is not there). It does build if one
> downloads the servlet and jsp api and puts them in the appropriate
> directory with the appropriate name, but this needs to be documented.
>
> > Furthermore the question is how we will be able to get three binding
> > votes at all on the general incubator list. Unfortuately there has
> > recently been litte interest in this matter so all we can hope for is a
> > positive vote of Henning, Thomas and Martijn. So my question goes
> > especially to those three: How can procede in order to get a positive
> > vote from you.
>
> We are three mentors, this should be enough to get three positive votes
> if the issues are resolved. The 1.0.3 release candidate has still the
> freemarker license problem, and the 1.0.4 release has no build
> documentation, so both are problematic. I'd vote +1 on a 1.0.5 rc with
> either the jsp api and servlet api from tomcat, or an appropriate build
> documentation (which would be a good idea even if you'd include the jars)
>
> > Please take into accout, that the distribution currently avaialbe for
> > downlaod from our project web-site and source-forge has nothing to do
> > with apache at all. This will make it even harder to attract new users.
>
> The difference betweeen apache and sourceforge is that apache projects
> have some kind of overwiew, and sourceforge hasn't. If you do not want the
> overwiew, and think that it is too much hassle, there is always the
> sourceforge alternative.
>
> Thomas
>
> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200809.mbox/%3c20080918214721.B3209@minotaur.apache.org%3e
Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by Rainer Döbele <do...@esteam.de>.
Hi Thomas,
thanks for your reply. Hope you did not misunderstand me. I really appreciated that you investigated about the licensing, and I am well aware of its importance. I just cannot take care of everything myself and there are probably people out there who are better with legal stuff than I am.
About the 72 hour period: I don't think generally extending the period is a good idea, it will just slow down the process. Instead I suggest, that if anyone wants to have a closer look but needs more time, just to post a short message saying until when he / she will be able to look at it. The caller of the vote (Jörg so far) will then wait until this person has answered.
Would that be OK for you Thomas?
For the upcoming release: I think we should just update the 1.0.4. struts2-extentions release now, by including the two questionable jars instead of the "libinfo.txt" file in the lib directory (Thomas was that the file you were looking for?).
We have already made a few code changes unter the 2.0.5 / 1.0.5. label, but I would rather not close this version yet.
BTW: With my source-forge comment I just wanted to point out, that users (not me) would probably want an Apache distribution for download which we still cannot offer. I fear that that might put possible users off.
Regards,
Rainer
Thomas Fischer wrote:
>
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Rainer Döbele wrote:
>
> > looks like we're running in circles with that struts2 extentions
> > release. Partially it is probably my own fault since I did not question
> > Thomas' findings but I must say I am not really fond of all these legal
> > issues.
>
> Nobody is fond of that. But, if you want people to respect your own
> license, you better respect other people's licenses.
>
> > Personally I would really like to bundle the servlet-api and jsp-api in
> > order to have a nice clean and easy build process. I am also willing to
> > change the release build scripts once again.
>
> I have no problem with including the tomcat libraries.
>
> > However I would like everyone to acknolege that the process of making a
> > release build, uploading it, calling for vote on the dev-list, wainting
> > or 72 hours, posting the result, calling for voting on the general list,
> > ... is quite a tedious task and costs Jörg and me a lot of time.
> >
> > I would really appreciate if anyone who want's to check the release
> > would do this, while we're voting on the empire-db-dev list and not
> > leave it until we're on the general-incubator list. This would make life
> > for us a lot easier.
>
> I would also rather like to check the release while the vote is on
> empire-db-dev. But then the 72 hours is way too short. Remember that the
> mentors are non-paid volunteers and are doing the review in their spare
> time, and it also costs us a lot of time. If we do not have time in two
> successive evenings, the vote is closed. I'd appreciate a 7 days voting
> period.
>
> > We have run though this whole process three times now, and we still have
> > no binding positive votes for the struts2-extentions yet. If there are
> > any objections with what we currently offer as the release we should
> > really discuss and resolve them before our next attempt.
>
> It does not build by default, and there is no documentation on how to
> build it (at least I did not find it, and though I asked it [1] nobody
> pointed it out, so I assume that it is not there). It does build if one
> downloads the servlet and jsp api and puts them in the appropriate
> directory with the appropriate name, but this needs to be documented.
>
> > Furthermore the question is how we will be able to get three binding
> > votes at all on the general incubator list. Unfortuately there has
> > recently been litte interest in this matter so all we can hope for is a
> > positive vote of Henning, Thomas and Martijn. So my question goes
> > especially to those three: How can procede in order to get a positive
> > vote from you.
>
> We are three mentors, this should be enough to get three positive votes
> if the issues are resolved. The 1.0.3 release candidate has still the
> freemarker license problem, and the 1.0.4 release has no build
> documentation, so both are problematic. I'd vote +1 on a 1.0.5 rc with
> either the jsp api and servlet api from tomcat, or an appropriate build
> documentation (which would be a good idea even if you'd include the jars)
>
> > Please take into accout, that the distribution currently avaialbe for
> > downlaod from our project web-site and source-forge has nothing to do
> > with apache at all. This will make it even harder to attract new users.
>
> The difference betweeen apache and sourceforge is that apache projects
> have some kind of overwiew, and sourceforge hasn't. If you do not want the
> overwiew, and think that it is too much hassle, there is always the
> sourceforge alternative.
>
> Thomas
>
> [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-
> general/200809.mbox/%3c20080918214721.B3209@minotaur.apache.org%3e
Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by Thomas Fischer <tf...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Rainer D�bele wrote:
> looks like we're running in circles with that struts2 extentions
> release. Partially it is probably my own fault since I did not question
> Thomas' findings but I must say I am not really fond of all these legal
> issues.
Nobody is fond of that. But, if you want people to respect your own
license, you better respect other people's licenses.
> Personally I would really like to bundle the servlet-api and jsp-api in
> order to have a nice clean and easy build process. I am also willing to
> change the release build scripts once again.
I have no problem with including the tomcat libraries.
> However I would like everyone to acknolege that the process of making a
> release build, uploading it, calling for vote on the dev-list, wainting
> or 72 hours, posting the result, calling for voting on the general list,
> ... is quite a tedious task and costs J�rg and me a lot of time.
>
> I would really appreciate if anyone who want's to check the release
> would do this, while we're voting on the empire-db-dev list and not
> leave it until we're on the general-incubator list. This would make life
> for us a lot easier.
I would also rather like to check the release while the vote is on
empire-db-dev. But then the 72 hours is way too short. Remember that the
mentors are non-paid volunteers and are doing the review in their spare
time, and it also costs us a lot of time. If we do not have time in two
successive evenings, the vote is closed. I'd appreciate a 7 days voting
period.
> We have run though this whole process three times now, and we still have
> no binding positive votes for the struts2-extentions yet. If there are
> any objections with what we currently offer as the release we should
> really discuss and resolve them before our next attempt.
It does not build by default, and there is no documentation on how to
build it (at least I did not find it, and though I asked it [1] nobody
pointed it out, so I assume that it is not there). It does build if one
downloads the servlet and jsp api and puts them in the appropriate
directory with the appropriate name, but this needs to be documented.
> Furthermore the question is how we will be able to get three binding
> votes at all on the general incubator list. Unfortuately there has
> recently been litte interest in this matter so all we can hope for is a
> positive vote of Henning, Thomas and Martijn. So my question goes
> especially to those three: How can procede in order to get a positive
> vote from you.
We are three mentors, this should be enough to get three positive votes
if the issues are resolved. The 1.0.3 release candidate has still the
freemarker license problem, and the 1.0.4 release has no build
documentation, so both are problematic. I'd vote +1 on a 1.0.5 rc with
either the jsp api and servlet api from tomcat, or an appropriate build
documentation (which would be a good idea even if you'd include the jars)
> Please take into accout, that the distribution currently avaialbe for
> downlaod from our project web-site and source-forge has nothing to do
> with apache at all. This will make it even harder to attract new users.
The difference betweeen apache and sourceforge is that apache projects
have some kind of overwiew, and sourceforge hasn't. If you do not want the
overwiew, and think that it is too much hassle, there is always the
sourceforge alternative.
Thomas
[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200809.mbox/%3c20080918214721.B3209@minotaur.apache.org%3e
Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by Rainer Döbele <do...@esteam.de>.
Hi everyone,
looks like we're running in circles with that struts2 extentions release.
Partially it is probably my own fault since I did not question Thomas' findings but I must say I am not really fond of all these legal issues.
Personally I would really like to bundle the servlet-api and jsp-api in order to have a nice clean and easy build process. I am also willing to change the release build scripts once again.
However I would like everyone to acknolege that the process of making a release build, uploading it, calling for vote on the dev-list, wainting or 72 hours, posting the result, calling for voting on the general list, ... is quite a tedious task and costs Jörg and me a lot of time.
I would really appreciate if anyone who want's to check the release would do this, while we're voting on the empire-db-dev list and not leave it until we're on the general-incubator list. This would make life for us a lot easier.
We have run though this whole process three times now, and we still have no binding positive votes for the struts2-extentions yet. If there are any objections with what we currently offer as the release we should really discuss and resolve them before our next attempt.
Furthermore the question is how we will be able to get three binding votes at all on the general incubator list. Unfortuately there has recently been litte interest in this matter so all we can hope for is a positive vote of Henning, Thomas and Martijn. So my question goes especially to those three: How can procede in order to get a positive vote from you.
Please take into accout, that the distribution currently avaialbe for downlaod from our project web-site and source-forge has nothing to do with apache at all. This will make it even harder to attract new users.
Cheers
Rainer
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 10:29 +0200, Thomas Fischer wrote:
>
> > @Henning: the thread is
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200809.mbox/%3C20080906132153.L82797@minotaur.apache.org%3E
>
> Well, IMHO you simply erred on the servlet-api / jsp-api thing
> (empire-db, as an AL 2.0 licensed project is obviously free to include
> the jars from Apache tomcat, an AL 2.0 licensed project. The LICENSE and
> NOTICE files from Tomcat state that these files are under AL 2.0).
>
> And, BTW, according to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html, the
> CDDL 1.0 is part of the "B" list, which means, you can even bundle the
> unmodified binary archives, as long as you put appropriate documentation
> into LICENSE and NOTICE.
>
> Ciao
> Henning
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re:
[VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 10:29 +0200, Thomas Fischer wrote:
> @Henning: the thread is
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200809.mbox/%3C20080906132153.L82797@minotaur.apache.org%3E
Well, IMHO you simply erred on the servlet-api / jsp-api thing
(empire-db, as an AL 2.0 licensed project is obviously free to include
the jars from Apache tomcat, an AL 2.0 licensed project. The LICENSE and
NOTICE files from Tomcat state that these files are under AL 2.0).
And, BTW, according to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html, the
CDDL 1.0 is part of the "B" list, which means, you can even bundle the
unmodified binary archives, as long as you put appropriate documentation
into LICENSE and NOTICE.
Ciao
Henning
Re:
[VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 10:29 +0200, Thomas Fischer wrote:
> @Henning: the thread is
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200809.mbox/%3C20080906132153.L82797@minotaur.apache.org%3E
Well, IMHO you simply erred on the servlet-api / jsp-api thing
(empire-db, as an AL 2.0 licensed project is obviously free to include
the jars from Apache tomcat, an AL 2.0 licensed project. The LICENSE and
NOTICE files from Tomcat state that these files are under AL 2.0).
And, BTW, according to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html, the
CDDL 1.0 is part of the "B" list, which means, you can even bundle the
unmodified binary archives, as long as you put appropriate documentation
into LICENSE and NOTICE.
Ciao
Henning
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by Thomas Fischer <fi...@seitenbau.net>.
> In fact the jars we had in our struts2-ext 1.0.3 release candidate
> were taken from Tomcat 5.5. The manifest says:
>
> Manifest-Version: 1.0
> Ant-Version: Apache Ant 1.6.5
> Created-By: 1.4.2_11-b06 (Sun Microsystems Inc.)
>
> Name: javax/servlet/
> Specification-Title: Java API for Servlets
> Specification-Version: 2.4
> Specification-Vendor: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> Implementation-Title: javax.servlet
> Implementation-Version: 2.4.public_draft
> Implementation-Vendor: Apache Software Foundation
>
> Thomas investigated this and said it was not permitted to distribute
> those. This was the main reason why he rejected the release.
> Martijn agreed with that too.
>
> @Thomas: since Tomcat is distributing them, why can't we?
I was not aware that Tomcat is distributing the libraries under ASL. I was
under the impression that only Sun is distributing those and as such I
looked at Sun for the license, and found CDDL there. Sorry for that.
@Henning: the thread is
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200809.mbox/%3C20080906132153.L82797@minotaur.apache.org%3E
Thomas
Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by Thomas Fischer <fi...@seitenbau.net>.
> In fact the jars we had in our struts2-ext 1.0.3 release candidate
> were taken from Tomcat 5.5. The manifest says:
>
> Manifest-Version: 1.0
> Ant-Version: Apache Ant 1.6.5
> Created-By: 1.4.2_11-b06 (Sun Microsystems Inc.)
>
> Name: javax/servlet/
> Specification-Title: Java API for Servlets
> Specification-Version: 2.4
> Specification-Vendor: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> Implementation-Title: javax.servlet
> Implementation-Version: 2.4.public_draft
> Implementation-Vendor: Apache Software Foundation
>
> Thomas investigated this and said it was not permitted to distribute
> those. This was the main reason why he rejected the release.
> Martijn agreed with that too.
>
> @Thomas: since Tomcat is distributing them, why can't we?
I was not aware that Tomcat is distributing the libraries under ASL. I was
under the impression that only Sun is distributing those and as such I
looked at Sun for the license, and found CDDL there. Sorry for that.
@Henning: the thread is
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200809.mbox/%3C20080906132153.L82797@minotaur.apache.org%3E
Thomas
Re:
[VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
Uh, what? AFAIK they are under AL 2.0. It would be absurd if we could
not distribute jars taken from other Apache releases. Can you point me
at the vote thread with the rejection?
Ciao
Henning
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 09:13 +0200, Rainer Döbele wrote:
> Hi Henning,
>
> In fact the jars we had in our struts2-ext 1.0.3 release candidate were taken from Tomcat 5.5. The manifest says:
>
> Manifest-Version: 1.0
> Ant-Version: Apache Ant 1.6.5
> Created-By: 1.4.2_11-b06 (Sun Microsystems Inc.)
>
> Name: javax/servlet/
> Specification-Title: Java API for Servlets
> Specification-Version: 2.4
> Specification-Vendor: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> Implementation-Title: javax.servlet
> Implementation-Version: 2.4.public_draft
> Implementation-Vendor: Apache Software Foundation
>
> Thomas investigated this and said it was not permitted to distribute those. This was the main reason why he rejected the release.
> Martijn agreed with that too.
>
> @Thomas: since Tomcat is distributing them, why can't we?
>
> Rainer
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:henning@apache.org]
> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. September 2008 19:48
> > An: Rainer Döbele
> > Cc: general@incubator.apache.org; empire-db-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-
> > struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
> >
> > On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:00 +0200, Rainer Döbele wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone know where to obtain distributable versions of the servlet-
> > api.jar and jsp-api.jar from? The only implementations I know come from
> > Sun Microsystems and are under CDDL License.
> >
> > Tomcat is shipping implementations, so there are Apache licensed ones /
> > compatible licensed ones. Just grab them from e.g. Tomcat 5.5
> >
> > Ciao
> > Henning
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re:
[VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
Uh, what? AFAIK they are under AL 2.0. It would be absurd if we could
not distribute jars taken from other Apache releases. Can you point me
at the vote thread with the rejection?
Ciao
Henning
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 09:13 +0200, Rainer Döbele wrote:
> Hi Henning,
>
> In fact the jars we had in our struts2-ext 1.0.3 release candidate were taken from Tomcat 5.5. The manifest says:
>
> Manifest-Version: 1.0
> Ant-Version: Apache Ant 1.6.5
> Created-By: 1.4.2_11-b06 (Sun Microsystems Inc.)
>
> Name: javax/servlet/
> Specification-Title: Java API for Servlets
> Specification-Version: 2.4
> Specification-Vendor: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> Implementation-Title: javax.servlet
> Implementation-Version: 2.4.public_draft
> Implementation-Vendor: Apache Software Foundation
>
> Thomas investigated this and said it was not permitted to distribute those. This was the main reason why he rejected the release.
> Martijn agreed with that too.
>
> @Thomas: since Tomcat is distributing them, why can't we?
>
> Rainer
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:henning@apache.org]
> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. September 2008 19:48
> > An: Rainer Döbele
> > Cc: general@incubator.apache.org; empire-db-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-
> > struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
> >
> > On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:00 +0200, Rainer Döbele wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone know where to obtain distributable versions of the servlet-
> > api.jar and jsp-api.jar from? The only implementations I know come from
> > Sun Microsystems and are under CDDL License.
> >
> > Tomcat is shipping implementations, so there are Apache licensed ones /
> > compatible licensed ones. Just grab them from e.g. Tomcat 5.5
> >
> > Ciao
> > Henning
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by Rainer Döbele <do...@esteam.de>.
Hi Henning,
In fact the jars we had in our struts2-ext 1.0.3 release candidate were taken from Tomcat 5.5. The manifest says:
Manifest-Version: 1.0
Ant-Version: Apache Ant 1.6.5
Created-By: 1.4.2_11-b06 (Sun Microsystems Inc.)
Name: javax/servlet/
Specification-Title: Java API for Servlets
Specification-Version: 2.4
Specification-Vendor: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Implementation-Title: javax.servlet
Implementation-Version: 2.4.public_draft
Implementation-Vendor: Apache Software Foundation
Thomas investigated this and said it was not permitted to distribute those. This was the main reason why he rejected the release.
Martijn agreed with that too.
@Thomas: since Tomcat is distributing them, why can't we?
Rainer
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:henning@apache.org]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. September 2008 19:48
> An: Rainer Döbele
> Cc: general@incubator.apache.org; empire-db-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-
> struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
>
> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:00 +0200, Rainer Döbele wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know where to obtain distributable versions of the servlet-
> api.jar and jsp-api.jar from? The only implementations I know come from
> Sun Microsystems and are under CDDL License.
>
> Tomcat is shipping implementations, so there are Apache licensed ones /
> compatible licensed ones. Just grab them from e.g. Tomcat 5.5
>
> Ciao
> Henning
>
>
Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
Posted by Rainer Döbele <do...@esteam.de>.
Hi Henning,
In fact the jars we had in our struts2-ext 1.0.3 release candidate were taken from Tomcat 5.5. The manifest says:
Manifest-Version: 1.0
Ant-Version: Apache Ant 1.6.5
Created-By: 1.4.2_11-b06 (Sun Microsystems Inc.)
Name: javax/servlet/
Specification-Title: Java API for Servlets
Specification-Version: 2.4
Specification-Vendor: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Implementation-Title: javax.servlet
Implementation-Version: 2.4.public_draft
Implementation-Vendor: Apache Software Foundation
Thomas investigated this and said it was not permitted to distribute those. This was the main reason why he rejected the release.
Martijn agreed with that too.
@Thomas: since Tomcat is distributing them, why can't we?
Rainer
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:henning@apache.org]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. September 2008 19:48
> An: Rainer Döbele
> Cc: general@incubator.apache.org; empire-db-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [VOTE]apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-
> struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubatingrelease
>
> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:00 +0200, Rainer Döbele wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know where to obtain distributable versions of the servlet-
> api.jar and jsp-api.jar from? The only implementations I know come from
> Sun Microsystems and are under CDDL License.
>
> Tomcat is shipping implementations, so there are Apache licensed ones /
> compatible licensed ones. Just grab them from e.g. Tomcat 5.5
>
> Ciao
> Henning
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]
apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubating
release
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:00 +0200, Rainer Döbele wrote:
> Does anyone know where to obtain distributable versions of the servlet-api.jar and jsp-api.jar from? The only implementations I know come from Sun Microsystems and are under CDDL License.
Tomcat is shipping implementations, so there are Apache licensed ones /
compatible licensed ones. Just grab them from e.g. Tomcat 5.5
Ciao
Henning
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE]
apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubating
release
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:00 +0200, Rainer Döbele wrote:
> Does anyone know where to obtain distributable versions of the servlet-api.jar and jsp-api.jar from? The only implementations I know come from Sun Microsystems and are under CDDL License.
Tomcat is shipping implementations, so there are Apache licensed ones /
compatible licensed ones. Just grab them from e.g. Tomcat 5.5
Ciao
Henning
Re: [VOTE] apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubatingandapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubating release
Posted by Rainer Döbele <do...@esteam.de>.
Thank you Henning very much for your helpful comments on the servlet-api.jar and jsp-api.jar problem. Obviously there is a lot to learn for us about build scripts.
Hening wrote:
> ... Or you can bundle them with your source code; there are
> distributable versions of the APIs.
Does anyone know where to obtain distributable versions of the servlet-api.jar and jsp-api.jar from? The only implementations I know come from Sun Microsystems and are under CDDL License.
Rainer
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 10:31 +0200, Rainer Döbele wrote:
> > Hi Henning,
> >
> > thanks for your vote.
> > Here are a few answers to your comments:
> >
> > Testing is currently performed by running the two example applications
> provided with the distribution, which contain various tasks. Each of them
> is run once for each supported database, and the logs are checked. This
> has to be further automated of course with proper unit tests.
> >
> > We deliberately desinged the build.xml supplied with the distribution
> that it will build a jar without a version number, assuming that people
> will build the jar only if they have made changes to the code (why would
> anyone just build it?). And if they have made changes then the version
> number is undefined. IMO only the official build should contain the
> version number. Disagree?
>
> You are distributing source code. If someone builds a modified jar and
> does not change the version fields etc., that is their problem. You are
> the ones who control official releases and distributions. Don't
> over-engineer.
>
> Your usual consumer will not bother downloading the source code and
> modifying it. They will get a binary distribution and put it into their
> projects. So you should make the build process as convenient for you as
> possible. It should be redo-able (like I tried when building empire-db
> for testing) but it does not need to cater to all possible scenarios.
>
> >
> > With the struts-extentions we're in a dilemma. It won't build without
> servlet-api.jar and jsp-api.jar. There is an info file that informs the
> user about the requirement for these two jars.
> > Does anyone have an idea how to deal with this except using maven? Can
> we expect all users to use maven for building the project and the
> examples?
>
> If you use ant, you can use the <get> task to pull them from a
> repository. You can use ivy together with ant. You could use a maven
> based build. Or you can bundle them with your source code; there are
> distributable versions of the APIs.
>
> > I very much appreciate if the other voters would not reject or abstain
> from voting the struts-extentions just for the build problem concering the
> servlet-api.jar and jsp-api.jar. We have discussed this issue with the
> previous release candidate and there were no objections on the way we
> solved this now (i.e. providing an information file). I have already asked
> for alternatives but no one suggested a different solution.
>
> When I need some build code for Java, I usually take inspiration and
> code from other Apache projects. We have a lot of Java projects and all
> have build code. :-)
>
> Ciao
> Henning
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubating
andapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubating release
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 10:31 +0200, Rainer Döbele wrote:
> Hi Henning,
>
> thanks for your vote.
> Here are a few answers to your comments:
>
> Testing is currently performed by running the two example applications provided with the distribution, which contain various tasks. Each of them is run once for each supported database, and the logs are checked. This has to be further automated of course with proper unit tests.
>
> We deliberately desinged the build.xml supplied with the distribution that it will build a jar without a version number, assuming that people will build the jar only if they have made changes to the code (why would anyone just build it?). And if they have made changes then the version number is undefined. IMO only the official build should contain the version number. Disagree?
You are distributing source code. If someone builds a modified jar and
does not change the version fields etc., that is their problem. You are
the ones who control official releases and distributions. Don't
over-engineer.
Your usual consumer will not bother downloading the source code and
modifying it. They will get a binary distribution and put it into their
projects. So you should make the build process as convenient for you as
possible. It should be redo-able (like I tried when building empire-db
for testing) but it does not need to cater to all possible scenarios.
>
> With the struts-extentions we're in a dilemma. It won't build without servlet-api.jar and jsp-api.jar. There is an info file that informs the user about the requirement for these two jars.
> Does anyone have an idea how to deal with this except using maven? Can we expect all users to use maven for building the project and the examples?
If you use ant, you can use the <get> task to pull them from a
repository. You can use ivy together with ant. You could use a maven
based build. Or you can bundle them with your source code; there are
distributable versions of the APIs.
> I very much appreciate if the other voters would not reject or abstain from voting the struts-extentions just for the build problem concering the servlet-api.jar and jsp-api.jar. We have discussed this issue with the previous release candidate and there were no objections on the way we solved this now (i.e. providing an information file). I have already asked for alternatives but no one suggested a different solution.
When I need some build code for Java, I usually take inspiration and
code from other Apache projects. We have a lot of Java projects and all
have build code. :-)
Ciao
Henning
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubating andapache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubating release
Posted by Rainer Döbele <do...@esteam.de>.
Hi Henning,
thanks for your vote.
Here are a few answers to your comments:
Testing is currently performed by running the two example applications provided with the distribution, which contain various tasks. Each of them is run once for each supported database, and the logs are checked. This has to be further automated of course with proper unit tests.
We deliberately desinged the build.xml supplied with the distribution that it will build a jar without a version number, assuming that people will build the jar only if they have made changes to the code (why would anyone just build it?). And if they have made changes then the version number is undefined. IMO only the official build should contain the version number. Disagree?
With the struts-extentions we're in a dilemma. It won't build without servlet-api.jar and jsp-api.jar. There is an info file that informs the user about the requirement for these two jars.
Does anyone have an idea how to deal with this except using maven? Can we expect all users to use maven for building the project and the examples?
I very much appreciate if the other voters would not reject or abstain from voting the struts-extentions just for the build problem concering the servlet-api.jar and jsp-api.jar. We have discussed this issue with the previous release candidate and there were no objections on the way we solved this now (i.e. providing an information file). I have already asked for alternatives but no one suggested a different solution.
BTW: Here's my +1 for both distributions (although non-binding).
Rainer
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> md5sum and sha1sum (on linux) did not like the checksum files. Checksums
> are ok, though.
>
> gpg key is ok. rat looks good.
>
> apache-empire-db builds for me. Can't say much more. Unit tests? Any
> kind of code verification? Test suite? This is hopefully just "coming
> soon", right? :-)
>
> nitpick: build result is "empire-db.jar", the release jar included is
> "empire-db-2.0.4.jar"
>
> +1 for apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubating
>
>
> apache-empire-struts-ext-1.0.4-incubating does not. It probably builds
> in Eclipse but it is missing the servlet-api.jar and jsp-api.jar, which
> are e.g. available on repo1. You might consider reworking your build
> files to be a bit more flexible anyway. :-)
>
> So this is basically a -0 for apache-empire-struts-ext, I don't feel
> that the build problems warrant vetoing it for this release (they will
> for the next).
>
> According to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html , the Freemarker
> License (which is BSD-like) nor the Hypersonic License (also BSD-like)
> or the OpenSymphony License (which is Apache 1.1) are on that list.
> While it is just a formality, can you please open issues on
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL to rubber-stamp them (and
> add them to the "A" list).
>
> I also think, it is sufficient to have only a single LICENSES file,
> which contains all the licenses used.
>
> Ciao
> Henning
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 13:37 +0200, Jörg Reiher wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > the community has approved a release of apache-empire-db-2.0.4-
> incubating and apache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubating.
> >
> >
> >
> > Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation Policy we would now
> like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC to make the release.
> >
> >
> >
> > Release proposal:
> >
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-empire-db-
> dev/200809.mbox/%3C0864536CC6E70F4F9FF85DE7334908CC07C119@esteams1.esteam.
> local%3E
> >
> >
> >
> > Vote result:
> >
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-empire-db-
> dev/200809.mbox/%3C0864536CC6E70F4F9FF85DE7334908CC07C123@esteams1.esteam.
> local%3E
> >
> >
> >
> > My vote is
> >
> > +1 (non binding)
> >
> >
> >
> > Joerg
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubating and
apache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubating release
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
md5sum and sha1sum (on linux) did not like the checksum files. Checksums
are ok, though.
gpg key is ok. rat looks good.
apache-empire-db builds for me. Can't say much more. Unit tests? Any
kind of code verification? Test suite? This is hopefully just "coming
soon", right? :-)
nitpick: build result is "empire-db.jar", the release jar included is
"empire-db-2.0.4.jar"
+1 for apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubating
apache-empire-struts-ext-1.0.4-incubating does not. It probably builds
in Eclipse but it is missing the servlet-api.jar and jsp-api.jar, which
are e.g. available on repo1. You might consider reworking your build
files to be a bit more flexible anyway. :-)
So this is basically a -0 for apache-empire-struts-ext, I don't feel
that the build problems warrant vetoing it for this release (they will
for the next).
According to http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html , the Freemarker
License (which is BSD-like) nor the Hypersonic License (also BSD-like)
or the OpenSymphony License (which is Apache 1.1) are on that list.
While it is just a formality, can you please open issues on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL to rubber-stamp them (and
add them to the "A" list).
I also think, it is sufficient to have only a single LICENSES file,
which contains all the licenses used.
Ciao
Henning
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 13:37 +0200, Jörg Reiher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the community has approved a release of apache-empire-db-2.0.4-incubating and apache-empire-struts2-ext-1.0.4-incubating.
>
>
>
> Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation Policy we would now like to request the approval of the Incubator PMC to make the release.
>
>
>
> Release proposal:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-empire-db-dev/200809.mbox/%3C0864536CC6E70F4F9FF85DE7334908CC07C119@esteams1.esteam.local%3E
>
>
>
> Vote result:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-empire-db-dev/200809.mbox/%3C0864536CC6E70F4F9FF85DE7334908CC07C123@esteams1.esteam.local%3E
>
>
>
> My vote is
>
> +1 (non binding)
>
>
>
> Joerg
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org