geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Editable files other than .bat and .sh files and CRs LFs
Date Fri, 02 Dec 2005 01:47:00 GMT
On 12/1/05, John Sisson <jrsisson@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> > Rather than using the archive format to determine the linebreak
> > convention, I would prefer an explicit build option (build for CR or
> > build for CR/LF). Also, having Windows specific archive(s) might imply
> > that there is more OS-specific behavior than we really have...
> >
> > All of our previous Milestone distributions have used CR's only, has
> > this posed a problem to Windows users? It hasn't really been a problem
> > for me developing on a Windows platform... I wonder if Geronimo users
> > would be happy with CR-only distributions until we're ready to offer
> > truly integrated Windows-specific behavior...
>
> I think you mean LF instead of CR in your last paragraph.  I assume that
> all the previous distributions used LF's because they were built on
> non-Windows platforms.  If I build Geronimo on Windows today the *.xml,
> *.txt, etc. files in the distribution  files will contain CR/LF's.  When
> that distribution is used on a non-Windows platform the CR's cause the
> problem demonstrated in my vi example in the original mail.


You are correct. I knew I was going to get myself turned around... I
understand the problem you are addressing...

In summary, the contents of the distribution files are not the same
> between builds on Windows and non-Windows platforms, which is bad.  It
> should not matter what platform a release is built on.


Totally agree.

Since this is a 1.0 release, now is the opportunity to do better than
> some other projects and provide the files with the correct linebreak
> convention for *NIX and Windows platforms to ensure a positive user
> experience (e.g. Windows users don't get prompted to convert to DOS
> format with some editors when they edit files).
>
> I don't think we want to be providing two forms of zip and tar.gz files
> one with CR and the other with CR/LF.  *NIX users should always use the
> tar.gz files so they get permissions set on files, therefore it seems
> reasonable to assume that the zip distribution will only be used by
> Windows users.


I'm probably generating more discussion than this topic merits, but simply
generating files with CR/LF's and calling it a "Windows distribution"
doesn't seem like enough. Unless Windows users were complaining, I'd just
build LF-only distributions from all build platforms.

Now, if we built a Windows distribution which contained only .bat files (no
.sh files) and appropriate CR/LF's (and vice versa), then it seems like
we're making an honest effort towards OS-specific distributions... I'm sure
that would be much more involved than your current proposal.

I'm +1 for creating consistent distributions regardless of the build
platform. I'm +0 for making zip files use CR/LF and not doing more to create
OS-specific distributions...

--kevan

Thoughts?
>
> John
>
> >
> > --kevan
> >
> > On 12/1/05, *John Sisson* < jrsisson@gmail.com
> > <mailto: jrsisson@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Currently if you build a Geronimo distribution on Windows, and
> install
> >     on a *NIX platform, files such XML and property files will contain
> >     carriage returns.
> >
> >     This is ugly if you are attempting to edit an XML plan using
> >     something
> >     like the vi editor that displays the carriage returns as ^M.
> >
> >     This also is a problem for the viewable files in the root directory
> of
> >     the install, such as the README.txt file.
> >
> >     We could fix this by using the fixcrlf task (in the same place I
> >     did for
> >     GERONIMO-1232) and making the assumption that the zip distribution
> >     will
> >     only be used on Windows and the tar.gz distributions only used on
> *NIX
> >     platforms. This would allow people to use native editors on their
> >     platform (e.g. vi or notepad on windows) without having any
> problems.
> >
> >     Is this a reasonable assumption to make?  Of course we could
> >     explicitly
> >     state on the download page what the difference between the
> >     distributions
> >     would be.
> >
> >     John
> >
> >     Here is an example of me trying to edit an XML file using vi on
> >     Solaris
> >     (when built from Windows):
> >
> >     <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>^M
> >     <!--^M
> >     ^M
> >         Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation^M
> >     ^M
> >         Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
> "License");^M
> >         you may not use this file except in compliance with the
> >     License.^M
> >         You may obtain a copy of the License at^M
> >     ^M
> >             http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0^M<http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0%5EM>
> >     <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0%5EM >
> >     ^M
> >         Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
> >     software^M
> >         distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS"
> >     BASIS,^M
> >         WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
> >     implied.^M
> >         See the License for the specific language governing
> >     permissions and^M
> >         limitations under the License.^M
> >     -->^M
> >     ^M
> >     <!-- $Rev: 292333 $ $Date: 2005-09-29 08:09:15 +1000 (Thu, 29 Sep
> >     2005)
> >     $ -->^M
> >     ^M
> >     <!--^M
> >     A security realm available to be used by sample applications.^M
> >     ^M
> >
> >
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message