Just note that nb-javac won’t be with us forever, work is being done to remove our need for it. Once that is done, we’ll be in a really good state.
In the meantime, as well as atter that, we should do everything we can to work with Kirk and anyone else to provide a bundle of their JDK with NetBeans. Our installer, in whatever way we provide it, will be problematic in one way or another. I just don’t see how we can provide an installer from Apache that bundles both NetBeans and JDK, whatever that JDK is, but (unless AdoptOpenJDK makes such a bundle prominently and stably available) that doesn’t mean we should not try to make even a flawed installer available, i.e., without the JDK, which is a lot better than nothing. Gj On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 18:08, Laszlo Kishalmi <laszlo.kisha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just adding some info: > > It is not just about the JDK, but JDK, nb-javac and probably a fitting > JavaFX runtime. > > If someone can bundle those up and provide an installer most probably > based on the installer code we have, then that would be the best end > user experience, like in the old days when we said NetBeans just works. > > Separate distributions, like OpenBeans, would eventually emerge. > > It is just a question of what would be better for the brand. Keeping our > "crippled" installers and/or offer additional install experience from > third parties. > > On 11/28/19 8:49 AM, Kirk Pepperdine wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Again, I believe that you could distribute from Adopt with a JDK > bundled. So maybe this is a case where using a 3rd party makes sense. > > > > Kind regards, > > Kirk > > > > > >> On Nov 28, 2019, at 8:45 AM, Kenneth Fogel <kfo...@dawsoncollege.qc.ca> > wrote: > >> > >> I apologize if I misunderstood but the conversation appeared to me, > likely incorrectly, to go beyond just bundling a Java JDK. The installers > that are already there, are they downloading a JDK if one is not present? > Requiring a separate install of Java is the status quo. If we could make > that part of the NetBeans installer then we should an we should pursue an > exemption to Apache policies if required. > >> > >> Ken > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Geertjan Wielenga <geert...@apache.org> > >> Sent: November 28, 2019 11:30 AM > >> To: dev@netbeans.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping Installers from the Release Process > leave that work to Third Party Distributors > >> > >> You’re aware that we’re already distributing an installer, right? And > that that is not what we’re talking about? > >> > >> We’re talking about the fact that we can’t bundle the JDK with that > installer and then distribute that installer from Apache. > >> > >> A simple link on our download page to OpenBeans and AdoptOpenJDK and > any other distributor is all we need, for the installers of NetBeans that > bundle the JDK. > >> > >> Gj > >> > >> > >> On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 17:20, Kenneth Fogel <kfo...@dawsoncollege.qc.ca > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> This is a bad idea. I personally feel that an installer is mandatory. > >>> Eclipse and IntelliJ have installers for all platforms. Leaving it to > >>> third parties will mean that we have no oversight on the quality and > >>> ease of use of the installer. Only distributing a zip file implies > >>> that skills beyond learning to code with NetBeans will be required. We > >>> can pretty much write off the education sector if there is no > >>> installer. Sorry to be harsh but this is a line I believe we must not > cross. > >>> > >>> It is unfortunates, as someone has pointed out, that Apache is not end > >>> user friendly but that is no excuse. NetBeans is an end user program > >>> and must be as easy to install as any other IDE and have an official > installer. > >>> > >>> Ken > >>> > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Laszlo Kishalmi <laszlo.kisha...@gmail.com> > >>> Sent: November 27, 2019 2:41 PM > >>> To: Apache NetBeans <dev@netbeans.apache.org> > >>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Dropping Installers from the Release Process leave > >>> that work to Third Party Distributors > >>> > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> It is a great burden to us to provide the best out-of-the-box install > >>> experience with NetBeans. That would mean, providing an installer with > >>> JDK, nb-javac probably javafx. > >>> > >>> See the threads: > >>> > >>> > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a3e6051130e18aae3f7a81c562a63ac96 > >>> d3a3a07d4bcbee074392d59@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E > >>> > >>> > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/489f17e30d9125ee48e2d78dc36572db6 > >>> a3f5d6474f492458e0db151@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E > >>> > >>> On 11/26/19 9:29 PM, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote: > >>>> Dear all, > >>>> > >>>> I try to summary the lengthy threads about bundling OpenJDK GPL+CPE > >>>> with Apache NetBeans. > >>>> > >>>> There are mainly two readings of GPL+CPE: > >>>> > >>>> 1. OpenJDK (GPL+CPE) + NetBeans (Apache) = Executable which can be > >>>> distributed under Apache license, due to CPE 2. CPE only allows > >>>> other product built on Java to be distributed > >>>> under their own license. > >>>> > >>>> As I'm not a lawyer, I cannot answer which interpretation is correct > >>>> (maybe none of them). ASF has every right to regard the second > >>>> interpretation, thus GPL+CPE ended up in the Category-X licenses. > >>>> > >>>> The following viable possibilities were brought up: > >>>> > >>>> 1. We may apply for an exception to the board 2. Use some download > >>>> logic in the installer. > >>>> 3. Leave the binary packaging and distribution to third parties. > >>>> > >>>> Regarding that there are interest from third parties to built on > >>>> Apache NetBeans, I'm going to recommend the PMC to select a few > >>>> distributor for creating installer packages and we limit/drop our > >>>> installer bundle creation in the future. > >>>> > >>>> Thank you, > >>>> > >>>> Laszlo Kishalmi > >>>> > >>> I do not think that after this discussion we would get the exception > >>> from the board Geertjan might try to bring it up there as well. > >>> > >>> As of me option 2 is questionable. > >>> > >>> Option 3. is a bit hard to say, but if we can't produce proper > >>> installation packages, it would probably better to not create those > >>> packages at all, leave that for others. > >>> > >>> How I imagine that: > >>> > >>> 1. From 11.3 we remove the convenience binaries and installers from > >>> our download page > >>> 2. We would still create, sign and host our nbm-s. > >>> 3. On our download page we have the source package and a section for > >>> third party distributors. > >>> > >>> Well of course this thread is just to start a discussion about this > >>> matter. I know it would hurt the brand, but probably it is better than > >>> produce some sub-optimal installers while other parties can come with > >>> all the bells and whistles. > >>> > >>> Thank you, > >>> > >>> Laszlo Kishalmi > >>> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.apache.org > >> > >> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > >> > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.apache.org > > > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.apache.org > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > > > >
