You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@uima.apache.org by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> on 2013/11/21 15:08:45 UTC
Early review of DUCC pre-release - README and install-so
The readme has a section 5.1 "Supported Platforms". I believe that DUCC only is
supported on Linux? This isn't mentioned here.
The installation instructions (in duccdocs) say the distr file is named "....
-[version] . tgz" whereas, it appears to be named: " ... -[version]- . bin . tar
. gz. Later parts of the documentation continue to refer to .tgz.
The profile for building the duccdocs was renamed to be just the apache-release
profile, but the documentation and the comments in the pom still say to use
-Pbuild-duccdocs.
The install instruction pdf/html is called "install-so.xxx" ? Should the "-so"
be dropped?
-Marshall
Re: Early review of DUCC pre-release - README and install-so
Posted by Jim Challenger <ch...@gmail.com>.
I'll update the doc to change the extension … tgz used to be right but Maven uses a different convention.
The -so suffix stands for stand-alone, and is an artifact of how Latex process the docs - there is a skeleton called install-so.tex that imbeds the installation chapter from the main duccbook.
I'll rename it to 'installation.tex' .
Jim
On Nov 21, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik <ui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I will change README to make it explicit that DUCC runs on Linux only (and
> possibly MAC OS?)
>
> Jim please update the duccdocs to address the naming inconsistencies in the
> distr file.
>
> There are two profiles under which duccdocs are built: apache-release and
> build-duccdocs. Running
> with apache-release requires GDP passphrase. I thought that there should be
> an easy way to
> build duccdocs for those that are not set up for GDP. I think this is a
> correct approach.
>
> Jim, can you handle the name change of the install-so.xxx.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
>> The readme has a section 5.1 "Supported Platforms". I believe that DUCC
>> only is
>> supported on Linux? This isn't mentioned here.
>>
>> The installation instructions (in duccdocs) say the distr file is named
>> "....
>> -[version] . tgz" whereas, it appears to be named: " ... -[version]- . bin
>> . tar
>> . gz. Later parts of the documentation continue to refer to .tgz.
>>
>> The profile for building the duccdocs was renamed to be just the
>> apache-release
>> profile, but the documentation and the comments in the pom still say to use
>> -Pbuild-duccdocs.
>>
>> The install instruction pdf/html is called "install-so.xxx" ? Should the
>> "-so"
>> be dropped?
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>>
Re: Early review of DUCC pre-release - README and install-so
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 11/21/2013 9:35 AM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik wrote:
> I will change README to make it explicit that DUCC runs on Linux only (and
> possibly MAC OS?)
>
> Jim please update the duccdocs to address the naming inconsistencies in the
> distr file.
>
> There are two profiles under which duccdocs are built: apache-release and
> build-duccdocs. Running
> with apache-release requires GDP passphrase. I thought that there should be
> an easy way to
> build duccdocs for those that are not set up for GDP. I think this is a
GDP -> GPG :-)
> correct approach.
Sounds right. I had collapsed at one point one of the profiles, so in a later
review, I missed it... The current impl in the pom duplicates the fairly long
bit of xml under the two profiles. I looked for a way to combine these, but
didn't find one...
-Marshall
Re: Early review of DUCC pre-release - README and install-so
Posted by Jaroslaw Cwiklik <ui...@gmail.com>.
I will change README to make it explicit that DUCC runs on Linux only (and
possibly MAC OS?)
Jim please update the duccdocs to address the naming inconsistencies in the
distr file.
There are two profiles under which duccdocs are built: apache-release and
build-duccdocs. Running
with apache-release requires GDP passphrase. I thought that there should be
an easy way to
build duccdocs for those that are not set up for GDP. I think this is a
correct approach.
Jim, can you handle the name change of the install-so.xxx.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> The readme has a section 5.1 "Supported Platforms". I believe that DUCC
> only is
> supported on Linux? This isn't mentioned here.
>
> The installation instructions (in duccdocs) say the distr file is named
> "....
> -[version] . tgz" whereas, it appears to be named: " ... -[version]- . bin
> . tar
> . gz. Later parts of the documentation continue to refer to .tgz.
>
> The profile for building the duccdocs was renamed to be just the
> apache-release
> profile, but the documentation and the comments in the pom still say to use
> -Pbuild-duccdocs.
>
> The install instruction pdf/html is called "install-so.xxx" ? Should the
> "-so"
> be dropped?
>
> -Marshall
>
>
Re: Early review of DUCC pre-release - README and install-so
Posted by Neal R Lewis <nr...@us.ibm.com>.
A note on that: I've installed and ran on Fedora 19. I've also built
(but not ran) on OS x 10.9
From: Jim Challenger <ch...@gmail.com>
To: dev@uima.apache.org
Date: 11/21/2013 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: Early review of DUCC pre-release - README and
install-so
The installation manual states the following as a prerequisite:
"Reasonably current Linux. DUCC has been tested on SLES 10.2, 11.1, and
11.2, and RHEL 6.3."
It does work on (and includes small bit of specific code for) OSx but that
isn't "supported", per-se.
Are you saying that we should explicitly state, in addition, that DUCC is
supported only on Linux?
Jim
On Nov 21, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> The readme has a section 5.1 "Supported Platforms". I believe that DUCC
only is
> supported on Linux? This isn't mentioned here.
>
> The installation instructions (in duccdocs) say the distr file is named
"....
> -[version] . tgz" whereas, it appears to be named: " ... -[version]- .
bin . tar
> . gz. Later parts of the documentation continue to refer to .tgz.
>
> The profile for building the duccdocs was renamed to be just the
apache-release
> profile, but the documentation and the comments in the pom still say to
use
> -Pbuild-duccdocs.
>
> The install instruction pdf/html is called "install-so.xxx" ? Should the
"-so"
> be dropped?
>
> -Marshall
>
Re: Early review of DUCC pre-release - README and install-so
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
Instead of "Requires reasonable current Linux", something like:
The cluster of machines DUCC manages must all be runnning a reasonably current
level of Linux; other operating systems are not supported.
-Marshall
On 11/22/2013 11:12 AM, Jaroslaw Cwiklik wrote:
> I propose stating this in the README:
>
> "UIMA DUCC has been tested with Sun Java 6 as well as IBM Java 6 on Linux.
> Requires reasonable current Linux. DUCC has been tested on SLES 10.2, 11.1
> and 11.2, and RHEL 6.3. Limited testing has been done on Fedora 19 and
> MacOS 10.9"
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/21/2013 3:51 PM, Jim Challenger wrote:
>>> The installation manual states the following as a prerequisite:
>>>
>>> "Reasonably current Linux. DUCC has been tested on SLES 10.2, 11.1, and
>> 11.2, and RHEL 6.3."
>>> It does work on (and includes small bit of specific code for) OSx but
>> that isn't "supported", per-se.
>>> Are you saying that we should explicitly state, in addition, that DUCC
>> is supported only on Linux?
>>
>> I'm saying that the "README" should add some kind of statement about this
>> to its
>> section 5.1, "Supported Platforms". The exact form (for example,
>> reasonably
>> current Linux, with some untested support for MacOs version xxx) is up to
>> the
>> team to decide.
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
Re: Early review of DUCC pre-release - README and install-so
Posted by Jaroslaw Cwiklik <ui...@gmail.com>.
I propose stating this in the README:
"UIMA DUCC has been tested with Sun Java 6 as well as IBM Java 6 on Linux.
Requires reasonable current Linux. DUCC has been tested on SLES 10.2, 11.1
and 11.2, and RHEL 6.3. Limited testing has been done on Fedora 19 and
MacOS 10.9"
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/21/2013 3:51 PM, Jim Challenger wrote:
> > The installation manual states the following as a prerequisite:
> >
> > "Reasonably current Linux. DUCC has been tested on SLES 10.2, 11.1, and
> 11.2, and RHEL 6.3."
> >
> > It does work on (and includes small bit of specific code for) OSx but
> that isn't "supported", per-se.
> >
> > Are you saying that we should explicitly state, in addition, that DUCC
> is supported only on Linux?
>
> I'm saying that the "README" should add some kind of statement about this
> to its
> section 5.1, "Supported Platforms". The exact form (for example,
> reasonably
> current Linux, with some untested support for MacOs version xxx) is up to
> the
> team to decide.
>
> -Marshall
>
Re: Early review of DUCC pre-release - README and install-so
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 11/21/2013 3:51 PM, Jim Challenger wrote:
> The installation manual states the following as a prerequisite:
>
> "Reasonably current Linux. DUCC has been tested on SLES 10.2, 11.1, and 11.2, and RHEL 6.3."
>
> It does work on (and includes small bit of specific code for) OSx but that isn't "supported", per-se.
>
> Are you saying that we should explicitly state, in addition, that DUCC is supported only on Linux?
I'm saying that the "README" should add some kind of statement about this to its
section 5.1, "Supported Platforms". The exact form (for example, reasonably
current Linux, with some untested support for MacOs version xxx) is up to the
team to decide.
-Marshall
Re: Early review of DUCC pre-release - README and install-so
Posted by Jim Challenger <ch...@gmail.com>.
The installation manual states the following as a prerequisite:
"Reasonably current Linux. DUCC has been tested on SLES 10.2, 11.1, and 11.2, and RHEL 6.3."
It does work on (and includes small bit of specific code for) OSx but that isn't "supported", per-se.
Are you saying that we should explicitly state, in addition, that DUCC is supported only on Linux?
Jim
On Nov 21, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> The readme has a section 5.1 "Supported Platforms". I believe that DUCC only is
> supported on Linux? This isn't mentioned here.
>
> The installation instructions (in duccdocs) say the distr file is named "....
> -[version] . tgz" whereas, it appears to be named: " ... -[version]- . bin . tar
> . gz. Later parts of the documentation continue to refer to .tgz.
>
> The profile for building the duccdocs was renamed to be just the apache-release
> profile, but the documentation and the comments in the pom still say to use
> -Pbuild-duccdocs.
>
> The install instruction pdf/html is called "install-so.xxx" ? Should the "-so"
> be dropped?
>
> -Marshall
>