These patches are Debian build related. They are removing window stuff,
and renaming some library references used in our code. Seeing all these,
it is no wonder that the maintenance of the NetBeans Package is hard.
On 11/2/19 12:39 PM, Eric Bresie wrote:
Silly question these seem like from 10.0 timeframe and/or did any of these
changes make into current branch?
What changes/defects were these associated?
Eric Bresie
[email protected]
On November 2, 2019 at 5:52:29 AM CDT, Emilian Bold <[email protected]>
wrote:
Could you point me to some document with the conclusion (FAQ, or whatever)?
How is Debian NetBeans modified?
https://sources.debian.org/src/netbeans/10.0-3/debian/patches/ for starters.
--emi
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 12:40 PM Geertjan Wielenga <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, it did. And that was and is the outcome.
How is Debian NetBeans modified?
Gj
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 11:37 AM Emilian Bold <[email protected]> wrote:
The discussion never had an outcome. That is why I'm asking. Debian
NetBeans is *modified*.
--emi
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 12:31 PM Geertjan Wielenga <[email protected]>
wrote:
If NetBeans is unmodified it is NetBeans, regardless of what you want to
combine it with. It's been discussed and this is the outcome.
Gj
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM Emilian Bold <[email protected]>
wrote:
Any particular reason?
Well, I saw the new release, then the snapcraft release which reminded
me of the other NetBeans 'forks' under, for example, Debian which
still call themselves NetBeans although they are not released by
Apache. So I remembered we had a talk long ago about this.
From a pure precedent view, if Debian is able to call their package
NetBeans and (heavily) patch the codebase to fit their needs, others
should be able to do the same. (Not to mention how distros patch or
add/remove modules to Apache HTTPD, etc).
In particular, if I just take NetBeans and slap AdoptOpenJDK to it,
then I don't see under what interpretation Apache Legal or the
NetBeans PMC should send a cease and desist. But this is just an
example: a FAQ should perhaps clarify this.
--emi
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 10:46 AM Neil C Smith <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 2 Nov 2019, 06:12 Emilian Bold, <[email protected]>
wrote:
I'm curious what the PMC stance on the NetBeans brand and
trademark is
these days.
Any particular reason?
I personally remain of the view that convenience binaries made by
anyone
from our (unmodified) source releases should be allowed under
nominative
fair use. That seems in line with the ASF FAQ linked earlier. Not
sure
we've progressed any further on the issue though?
Best wishes,
Neil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
