sebb wrote: > The copyright year in the NOTICE files in the binary archive is still > 2008; surely it should be 2009?
Yep, it should be 2009. This has been fixed. > The connectors/NOTICE file in the source archive is wrong. > > There are no NOTICE files for the jasper and servletapi directory sub-trees. > It would be better to have a single N&L file at the top of the > directory structure, but failing that, each sub-tree needs the proper > N&L files. That is a lingering side-effect of when we had multiple CVS trees. The files used for 4.1.x are the ones in the container sub-directory. While this is clear in the binaries, I agree it could be clearer in the source distributions. Copying them to the root of the source distro seems like the simplest solution to me. This has been fixed. > The binary tgz and zip archives agree with each other. > > The source tgz and zip archives are different. The binary files (*.exe > and *.bin) are corrupted in the tgz archive. Also there are additional > EOLs at the end of many source files in the tgz archive. There seems > to be a bug in the packaging of the source files in the tar.gz format. Looks like the binary files have always been that way. I copied an updated exclusion list from TC6 and added one final exclusion that a diff with winmerge found. The extra line is the same issue as TC6 - again I ported the fix. > The apache-tomcat-4.1.40.exe fails for me when trying to install a > Full release on WinXP: > > It starts by saying it has found a Java development kit, but later on > fails with the message: > > Couldn't find a Java development kit on this computer. Please download > one from http://java.sun.com/ > > The last line in the installer dialogue is "Created uninstaller: ..." Hmm. The installer works for me on a fairly clean 32-bit XP SP2 vm image. Which JDK does it find and where does it find it? Is it a valid JDK? I'm leaning towards this being an isolated rather than a general issue. > There seem to be a lot of files missing from the installation compared > with the binary zip archive, but that is probably due to the premature > failure of the installation. Probably. > IMO the release is broken. If the windows installer issue is an isolated one it, the release is no worse than any that have gone out of the door previously. That said, the issues are all fixed so I'll roll a 4.1.41 release. Before I do that, I'd really like to get to the bottom of the issues you are seeing with the installer. Mark > > On 16/06/2009, Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> wrote: >> The candidates source tarball and derived binaries are available here: >> http://tomcat.apache.org/dev/dist/apache-tomcat-4.1.40/ >> >> According to the release process, the 4.0.40 tag is: >> [ ] Broken >> [ ] Alpha >> [ ] Beta >> [ ] Stable >> >> Mark >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
