Does this work: https://github.com/OpenBeans/NetBeans/releases/tag/11.2 ?
--emi On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:11 PM Geertjan Wielenga <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sure, I don’t see why not. The question is (1) who will make it, (2) what > will its name and brand be, (3) which JDK will be included, (4) who will > provide active support when things go wrong. > > Gj > > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 21:44, Ernie Rael <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Is it possible, and legal, to put an install bundle on github and point > > to it? > > > > -ernie > > > > On 11/28/2019 9:23 AM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: > > > 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 <[email protected] > > > > > > 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 < > > [email protected]> > > >> 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 <[email protected]> > > >>>> Sent: November 28, 2019 11:30 AM > > >>>> To: [email protected] > > >>>> 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 < > > [email protected] > > >>>> 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 <[email protected]> > > >>>>> Sent: November 27, 2019 2:41 PM > > >>>>> To: Apache NetBeans <[email protected]> > > >>>>> 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: [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 > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
