You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tapestry.apache.org by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> on 2007/06/24 00:53:09 UTC
[question] Release files
I took another look at our current releases and noticed that we aren't
exactly providing a lot in our distributions other than the tapestry jar
files themselves.
While looking around the other various apache (or any OS project for that
matter) project release bundles I noticed that they do helpfully include
their dependencies / other things for their users. Specifically, we can
look at either tomcat or struts - the recent struts release seems like a
good candidate to validate my argument though:
http://struts.apache.org/download.cgi#struts208
If you look through the "full" release you'll find:
apps/ - various war files
lib/ - All struts jars as well as all the other libraries it depends on.
Like OGNL / antlr / various apache commons things / etc..
src/ - self descriptive
docs/ - Generated site documentation
I've just finished refactoring the 4.1.2 maven2 assembly descriptors to
produce basically the same exact thing. All license files / notices / etc
are in the right places but the release would also be completely self
contained. No need to download anything from anywhere else once you get
it. I'd like to get some feedback on this move before I actually deploy it
to some kind of http://people.apache.org/~jkuhnert/release/ directory for
voting in case anyone sees any issues.
I know we've heard variations on this P.O.V. in apache legal but am starting
to wonder if the reality of what we see in all other apache project releases
(meaning they include non apache jar dependencies as well, just hopefully
not gpl/lgpl / incompatible license dependencies) sort of dwarfs whatever
confusion may be coming from other sources.
Ie. Why are we making users suffer when we don't have to?
--
Jesse Kuhnert
Tapestry/Dojo team member/developer
Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. http://blog.opencomponentry.com
Re: [question] Release files
Posted by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>.
Partly, my misunderstanding of what was legit to distribute from apache.org.
On 6/23/07, Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I took another look at our current releases and noticed that we aren't
> exactly providing a lot in our distributions other than the tapestry jar
> files themselves.
>
> While looking around the other various apache (or any OS project for that
> matter) project release bundles I noticed that they do helpfully include
> their dependencies / other things for their users. Specifically, we can
> look at either tomcat or struts - the recent struts release seems like a
> good candidate to validate my argument though:
>
> http://struts.apache.org/download.cgi#struts208
>
> If you look through the "full" release you'll find:
>
> apps/ - various war files
> lib/ - All struts jars as well as all the other libraries it depends on.
> Like OGNL / antlr / various apache commons things / etc..
> src/ - self descriptive
> docs/ - Generated site documentation
>
> I've just finished refactoring the 4.1.2 maven2 assembly descriptors to
> produce basically the same exact thing. All license files / notices / etc
> are in the right places but the release would also be completely self
> contained. No need to download anything from anywhere else once you get
> it. I'd like to get some feedback on this move before I actually deploy it
> to some kind of http://people.apache.org/~jkuhnert/release/ directory for
> voting in case anyone sees any issues.
>
> I know we've heard variations on this P.O.V. in apache legal but am starting
> to wonder if the reality of what we see in all other apache project releases
> (meaning they include non apache jar dependencies as well, just hopefully
> not gpl/lgpl / incompatible license dependencies) sort of dwarfs whatever
> confusion may be coming from other sources.
>
> Ie. Why are we making users suffer when we don't have to?
>
> --
> Jesse Kuhnert
> Tapestry/Dojo team member/developer
>
> Open source based consulting work centered around
> dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. http://blog.opencomponentry.com
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
TWD Consulting, Inc.
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator and PMC Chair, Apache Tapestry
Creator, Apache HiveMind
Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: [question] Release files
Posted by Norbert Sándor <de...@erinors.com>.
I get "Not found" message, probably you have removed the folder...
As I know you cannot distrubute some binaries because of licencing
reasons (it is possible that in the meantime the problematic binaries
have been removed/replaced).
I always hate when I download something, and the distribution contains
only a plain text list of dependencies (10+) which I had to find and
download manually from "somewhere".
What is important in a release:
- the most important is to upload the binaries and the pom to ibiblio
- create a distribution which includes all dependencies (if you don't
care about licensing restrictions)
- otherwise do not just provide a plain text file for the non-included
dependecies but direct links to the ibiblio location of them, so the
user needs only click on a link to get that dependecy
Regards:
Norbi
Jesse Kuhnert írta:
> I took another look at our current releases and noticed that we aren't
> exactly providing a lot in our distributions other than the tapestry jar
> files themselves.
>
> While looking around the other various apache (or any OS project for that
> matter) project release bundles I noticed that they do helpfully include
> their dependencies / other things for their users. Specifically, we
> can
> look at either tomcat or struts - the recent struts release seems like a
> good candidate to validate my argument though:
>
> http://struts.apache.org/download.cgi#struts208
>
> If you look through the "full" release you'll find:
>
> apps/ - various war files
> lib/ - All struts jars as well as all the other libraries it depends on.
> Like OGNL / antlr / various apache commons things / etc..
> src/ - self descriptive
> docs/ - Generated site documentation
>
> I've just finished refactoring the 4.1.2 maven2 assembly descriptors to
> produce basically the same exact thing. All license files / notices /
> etc
> are in the right places but the release would also be completely self
> contained. No need to download anything from anywhere else once you get
> it. I'd like to get some feedback on this move before I actually
> deploy it
> to some kind of http://people.apache.org/~jkuhnert/release/ directory for
> voting in case anyone sees any issues.
>
> I know we've heard variations on this P.O.V. in apache legal but am
> starting
> to wonder if the reality of what we see in all other apache project
> releases
> (meaning they include non apache jar dependencies as well, just hopefully
> not gpl/lgpl / incompatible license dependencies) sort of dwarfs whatever
> confusion may be coming from other sources.
>
> Ie. Why are we making users suffer when we don't have to?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/863 - Release Date: 2007.06.23. 11:08
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: [question] Release files
Posted by Jesse Kuhnert <jk...@gmail.com>.
Yeah, I understand why you would have been told that now after having
witnessed some of the conflicting messages on other apache mailing lists.
It's kind of hard to ignore statements from one of the apache founders, but
at the same time I think the amount/caliber of donated hardware resources to
the foundation has probably changed quite a bit since its inception.
...Hence the dual / confusing ambiguities with this policy.
I am certain of the license restrictions in any case and know everything in
the "full" list is completely compatible with apache 2(meaning that
including something like hibernate would of course still be a big no no).
If no one minds I'd be happy to take full responsibility for any questions
that come up from the release from the board / anywhere else. Looking at
the other apache project releases I find it next to impossible to believe
anyone would make a peep but you never know...
I'll probably tag / release to temp tomorrow and start a vote then.
On 6/23/07, andyhot <an...@di.uoa.gr> wrote:
>
> Well, you know, i've also asked about this before,
> cause i'm clearly in favor of a 'full' release - that's actually what
>
> https://nbtapestrysupport.dev.java.net/servlets/ProjectDocumentList?folderID=6266&expandFolder=6266&folderID=0
> contains.
>
> The usual answer of course has been that we aren't allowed to ... but
> borrowing from a Cranberries album and from my next blog entry (T4+groovy)
>
> Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can't We?
>
>
> Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> > I took another look at our current releases and noticed that we aren't
> > exactly providing a lot in our distributions other than the tapestry jar
> > files themselves.
> >
> > While looking around the other various apache (or any OS project for
> that
> > matter) project release bundles I noticed that they do helpfully include
> > their dependencies / other things for their users. Specifically, we
> > can
> > look at either tomcat or struts - the recent struts release seems like a
> > good candidate to validate my argument though:
> >
> > http://struts.apache.org/download.cgi#struts208
> >
> > If you look through the "full" release you'll find:
> >
> > apps/ - various war files
> > lib/ - All struts jars as well as all the other libraries it depends on.
> > Like OGNL / antlr / various apache commons things / etc..
> > src/ - self descriptive
> > docs/ - Generated site documentation
> >
> > I've just finished refactoring the 4.1.2 maven2 assembly descriptors to
> > produce basically the same exact thing. All license files / notices /
> > etc
> > are in the right places but the release would also be completely self
> > contained. No need to download anything from anywhere else once you get
> > it. I'd like to get some feedback on this move before I actually
> > deploy it
> > to some kind of http://people.apache.org/~jkuhnert/release/ directory
> for
> > voting in case anyone sees any issues.
> >
> > I know we've heard variations on this P.O.V. in apache legal but am
> > starting
> > to wonder if the reality of what we see in all other apache project
> > releases
> > (meaning they include non apache jar dependencies as well, just
> hopefully
> > not gpl/lgpl / incompatible license dependencies) sort of dwarfs
> whatever
> > confusion may be coming from other sources.
> >
> > Ie. Why are we making users suffer when we don't have to?
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
--
Jesse Kuhnert
Tapestry/Dojo team member/developer
Open source based consulting work centered around
dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. http://blog.opencomponentry.com
Re: [question] Release files
Posted by andyhot <an...@di.uoa.gr>.
Well, you know, i've also asked about this before,
cause i'm clearly in favor of a 'full' release - that's actually what
https://nbtapestrysupport.dev.java.net/servlets/ProjectDocumentList?folderID=6266&expandFolder=6266&folderID=0
contains.
The usual answer of course has been that we aren't allowed to ... but
borrowing from a Cranberries album and from my next blog entry (T4+groovy)
Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can't We?
Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
> I took another look at our current releases and noticed that we aren't
> exactly providing a lot in our distributions other than the tapestry jar
> files themselves.
>
> While looking around the other various apache (or any OS project for that
> matter) project release bundles I noticed that they do helpfully include
> their dependencies / other things for their users. Specifically, we
> can
> look at either tomcat or struts - the recent struts release seems like a
> good candidate to validate my argument though:
>
> http://struts.apache.org/download.cgi#struts208
>
> If you look through the "full" release you'll find:
>
> apps/ - various war files
> lib/ - All struts jars as well as all the other libraries it depends on.
> Like OGNL / antlr / various apache commons things / etc..
> src/ - self descriptive
> docs/ - Generated site documentation
>
> I've just finished refactoring the 4.1.2 maven2 assembly descriptors to
> produce basically the same exact thing. All license files / notices /
> etc
> are in the right places but the release would also be completely self
> contained. No need to download anything from anywhere else once you get
> it. I'd like to get some feedback on this move before I actually
> deploy it
> to some kind of http://people.apache.org/~jkuhnert/release/ directory for
> voting in case anyone sees any issues.
>
> I know we've heard variations on this P.O.V. in apache legal but am
> starting
> to wonder if the reality of what we see in all other apache project
> releases
> (meaning they include non apache jar dependencies as well, just hopefully
> not gpl/lgpl / incompatible license dependencies) sort of dwarfs whatever
> confusion may be coming from other sources.
>
> Ie. Why are we making users suffer when we don't have to?
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tapestry.apache.org