directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Seelmann <>
Subject Re: Release fo shared
Date Fri, 11 Feb 2011 07:29:04 GMT
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot
<> wrote:
> On 10 févr. 2011, at 11:14, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>> Note : this thread deserves to be on a public mailing list. Moved it there.
>> On 2/10/11 10:53 AM, Stefan Seelmann wrote:
>>> Yes Felix, I agree.
>>> I run the release process till item 6 of [3] which went smooth.
>>> But I found some issues, so I may rollback and run it again:
>>> - In LICENSE we list the Bouncy Castle license, however I don't find a
>>> reference where we use it in shared. So we should remove it from
>> BC is used in apacheds, not anymore in shared. We replaced the classes (DER stuff)
we copied from BC code last november.

I removed it.

>>> - The RAT report lists one file: file-review.txt. I think that file
>>> isn't helpful any more because many files were moved around. Can we
>>> remove it?
>> rm file-review.txt


>>> - The shared-all jar includes all transitive dependencies (slf4j,
>>> antlr, etc.), but the LICENSE and NOTICE files are not correct, that
>>> needs to be fixed.
>> +1

Still to do.

>>> Another question:
>>> Which artifacts do we ant to release to
>>> - None?
>>> - Only the source (the new org.apache:apache:8 POM configures the
>>> assembly plugin to generate a source-release zip [4])
>>> - Source and binary
>> IMO, source and binary. Note that it's good for shared, not for Studio or ADS : installers
should not be injected in the repo, AFAIU.
> Actually we've never released any Shared artifacts on
> It has always only been released on the Maven repositories (and inside other releases
like ApacheDS or Studio).
> For the LDAP Client API, it's different.
> We only released one version (0.1) and we offer archive (zip and tar.gz) and sources
downloads on the website [1].
> The archive contained all the needed jars to use the LDAP Client API:
>  - jcl-over-slf4j-1.5.10.jar
>  - ldap-client-api-0.1.jar
>  - shared-all-0.9.18.jar
>  - slf4j-api-1.5.10.jar
>  - slf4j-log4j12-1.5.10.jar
> Maybe we need to do something equivalent now that the API is included in Shared.
> Thoughts?

I agree that we should provide a zip and tar.gz with all required jars
(for non-maven/ivy users). The question is if we need provide it now.
IMO such a package should not be named 'shared' but 'ldap-api'. Also
note that the current zip/tar.gz doesn't fulfill the Apache release

A source package is required, but that's easy and already generated.

Please note that I can't continue with the outstanding issues and the
release before tonight.

Kind Regards,

View raw message