ofbiz-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com>
Subject Re: Should we do binary releases?
Date Wed, 24 Aug 2016 20:54:06 GMT
Taher,

Wait, either Tomcat, Ant and JMeter are doing it wrong or we don't understand this sentence
(I agree with you) or it's incomplete.

Because if you download each of their binary releases you will find in them "binary/bytecode
files" which are not the "result of compiling that 
version of the source code release"

Tomcat: ecj

Ant: ivy (+ 3 optionals)

JMeter: ~50 externals libs

I just checked Wicket: only own binaries, not even optionals like Ant.

For Tomcat and Ivy it's maybe optional, but for JMeter it's not it seems. I mean JMeter seems
to depends on these external libs and they are delivered 
in the binary. To be confirmed because I did not dig deeper.

It's even more obvious on Geronimo download page: http://geronimo.apache.org/apache-geronimo-v301-release.html

<<Following distributions use Tomcat as the Web container and Axis2 as the Web Services
engine.>>

I did download the 91 MB, and can confirm it has a total of 346 jars, most not being "result
of compiling that version of the source code release"

I guess the external libraries are runtime dependencies, in certain cases only optional.

I also read at http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b

<<software under the following licenses may be included in binary form within an Apache
product if the inclusion is appropriately labeled (see below):>>

So I don't think we can say "In other words we *cannot* include the dependencies in the binary
releases anyway. So people *must* use Gradle to 
download the dependencies"

Jacques

Le 24/08/2016 à 17:12, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit :
> Hi Jacques,
>
> The discussion we had in OFBIZ-7783 was basically around whether or not we
> should have a task to copy the gradle dependencies into a certain
> directory. We went through many discussions, the last one being that this
> task might be needed for binary releases.
>
> However, if you look at the reference that _you_ provided you will notice
> that is says that you "may only add binary/bytecode files that are the
> result of compiling that version of the source code release"
>
> We are _NOT_ compiling any of the dependencies, instead, the build system
> downloads them from jcenter in a precompiled form. In other words we cannot
> include the dependencies in the binary releases anyway. So people must use
> Gradle to download the dependencies, and so the whole purpose of the binary
> release becomes unnecessary as you must have gradle and java installed on
> your computer.
>
> Taher Alkhateeb
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Jacques Le Roux <
> jacques.le.roux@les7arts.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> At https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7783 we recently had a
>> discussion with Taher about doing or not binary releases.
>>
>> This is how the ASF defines a binary release (
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what)
>>
>> <<All releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make
>> changes to the software being released. In some cases, binary/bytecode
>> packages are also produced as a convenience to users that might not have
>> the appropriate tools to build a compiled version of the source. In all
>> such cases, the binary/bytecode package must have the same version number
>> as the source release and may only add binary/bytecode files that are the
>> result of compiling that version of the source code release.>>
>>
>> So the question is simple (not the answer, you need to think ahead): do we
>> want to do binary releases? It comes with some burden, does it worth it? No
>> needs to rush an answer :)
>>
>> If you want more information you can already look at the conversation we
>> had Pierre, Taher and I at OFBIZ-7783
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>


Mime
View raw message