Hi Jacques, I'm not sure how am I supposed to understand it? To me it seems clear .. You cannot add binaries unless they are the result of compiling the source code of the release you are preparing, it's written so very clearly. It also makes sense as it is saying that you can provide binary releases that represent the binary form of YOUR code.
On a different but relevant note, why do we want binary releases in the first place? What is the purpose? This is not a desktop application or a web server that you just want to fire up and start using. There is preparation work (loading data, configuring, etc ...). It would make sense to have a binary version of Tomcat, because I just want to start it up with defaults and run web applications against it. It would also make sense to want a binary version of a desktop application because I just want to use it. The story is completely different with OFBiz, this is not some software that you just compile and ship, it's a very customizable, tweakable system with many moving parts, especially the database! Having the build system is essential to its operation, so the whole idea of a binary stripped out release does not make much sense to me. Taher Alkhateeb On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Jacques Le Roux < jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > Taher, > > Wait, either Tomcat, Ant and JMeter are doing it wrong or we don't > understand this sentence (I agree with you) or it's incomplete. > > Because if you download each of their binary releases you will find in > them "binary/bytecode files" which are not the "result of compiling that > version of the source code release" > > Tomcat: ecj > > Ant: ivy (+ 3 optionals) > > JMeter: ~50 externals libs > > I just checked Wicket: only own binaries, not even optionals like Ant. > > For Tomcat and Ivy it's maybe optional, but for JMeter it's not it seems. > I mean JMeter seems to depends on these external libs and they are > delivered in the binary. To be confirmed because I did not dig deeper. > > It's even more obvious on Geronimo download page: > http://geronimo.apache.org/apache-geronimo-v301-release.html > > <<Following distributions use Tomcat as the Web container and Axis2 as the > Web Services engine.>> > > I did download the 91 MB, and can confirm it has a total of 346 jars, most > not being "result of compiling that version of the source code release" > > I guess the external libraries are runtime dependencies, in certain cases > only optional. > > I also read at http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b > > <<software under the following licenses may be included in binary form > within an Apache product if the inclusion is appropriately labeled (see > below):>> > > So I don't think we can say "In other words we *cannot* include the > dependencies in the binary releases anyway. So people *must* use Gradle to > download the dependencies" > > Jacques > > > Le 24/08/2016 à 17:12, Taher Alkhateeb a écrit : > >> Hi Jacques, >> >> The discussion we had in OFBIZ-7783 was basically around whether or not we >> should have a task to copy the gradle dependencies into a certain >> directory. We went through many discussions, the last one being that this >> task might be needed for binary releases. >> >> However, if you look at the reference that _you_ provided you will notice >> that is says that you "may only add binary/bytecode files that are the >> result of compiling that version of the source code release" >> >> We are _NOT_ compiling any of the dependencies, instead, the build system >> downloads them from jcenter in a precompiled form. In other words we >> cannot >> include the dependencies in the binary releases anyway. So people must use >> Gradle to download the dependencies, and so the whole purpose of the >> binary >> release becomes unnecessary as you must have gradle and java installed on >> your computer. >> >> Taher Alkhateeb >> >> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >>> >>> At https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-7783 we recently had a >>> discussion with Taher about doing or not binary releases. >>> >>> This is how the ASF defines a binary release ( >>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what) >>> >>> <<All releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make >>> changes to the software being released. In some cases, binary/bytecode >>> packages are also produced as a convenience to users that might not have >>> the appropriate tools to build a compiled version of the source. In all >>> such cases, the binary/bytecode package must have the same version number >>> as the source release and may only add binary/bytecode files that are the >>> result of compiling that version of the source code release.>> >>> >>> So the question is simple (not the answer, you need to think ahead): do >>> we >>> want to do binary releases? It comes with some burden, does it worth it? >>> No >>> needs to rush an answer :) >>> >>> If you want more information you can already look at the conversation we >>> had Pierre, Taher and I at OFBIZ-7783 >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> >>> >>> >
