On 04/12/12 05:35, Michael MacFadden wrote: > Benson, > > I agree. There was some progress in mavenizing the build. I suspect that > that solution will take some time.
For now it's working, though more recent commits are not merged, but without community input, it's hard to keep up, though. > The build process is somewhat > complicated at the moment, if this is the long term solution, we may need > to do something simpler to start off with. > > In the case of Junit, we should probably be able to remove it from a > binary release. There is no reason to include it in my mind since it's > only used during the build. Not sure on emma. Regardless a temporary > work around would be to remove them and simply required the users to > download them. We could even provide a simple script to do that. Maven or something similar are mostly known because they can handle the burden of downloading dependencies based on their scope. > > ~Michael > > > > On 12/3/12 3:45 PM, "Benson Margulies" <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Michael MacFadden >> <michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Benson, >>> >>> Yes, Angus had been working this issue for us and found a few third >>> party >>> Jars. Here is an extract from his email: >>> >>> ---------- >>> There's a couple of things going on at once at the moment: >>> -i'm in contact with the libIDN author, who is happy to release the >>> software under the Apache license, which means we can keep using that >>> once >>> a new release comes out >>> -the other two libraries junit and emma both think the best option is to >>> obfuscate the code somehow like ant, if anyone has any experience in >>> doing >>> it speaking up would be greatly appreciated >>> ----------- >>> >>> >>> Apparently, there is some precedent for obfuscating third party jars. >>> My >>> assumption is that something about the license views distributing Java >>> jars as being akin to a source distribution do to the ease of >>> decompilation. >> I cannot think of any reason why any Apache project should be >> concerned with obfuscation or decompilation. We are open source, and >> our dependencies are open source. Junit is a testing tool, so you >> should never need to redistribute it, just arrange to have it >> available for builds, and maven or ant/ivy will do that, and the same >> with emma, which is another development tool. >> >> There are many examples of this at other project. If it would be >> helpful, I could join the dev list to help with the discussion here. >> >> >> >>> Angus, >>> >>> Can you she some light on this? >>> >>> ~Michael >>> >>> On 12/3/12 12:54 PM, "Benson Margulies" <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Wave, >>>> >>>> I don't understand the remark in your report about the need to >>>> 'obfuscate' third party jar files. Could you please elaborate? Do you >>>> have problems with dependencies with incompatible licenses, or >>>> something else? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Benson >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> > -- Paulo Pires --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
