Just curious would/are non-Windows options also available?
Eric Bresie ebre...@gmail.com > On November 28, 2019 at 4:24:53 PM CST, Emilian Bold <emilian.b...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Does this work: https://github.com/OpenBeans/NetBeans/releases/tag/11.2 ? > > --emi > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:11 PM Geertjan Wielenga <geert...@apache.org> > 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 <err...@raelity.com> 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 <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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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 > > >
