Hi Guys, Sorry, been a bit busy of late.
Regarding Pear packaging, your intending to make this available via the main PEAR repository? (I investigated our own PEAR distribution but is not possible at this time). Regarding the new mvn targets, do you want me to extend buildbot to perform some more tests to include building these targets? I can, also get it to deploy to snapshots to Nexus repository staging area (repository.apache.org) , so you want me to do that? Anything else I can do? If we can get something ready for incubator to look at as a pre-release snapshot we can perhaps get some early feedback before trying it for real. Note also, that any release whilst under the incubator needs to have something like -incubating.snapshot in the name. Gav... > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Hammers [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, 1 November 2009 4:55 AM > To: Log4PHP Dev > Subject: Re: Last remarks regarding packages > > Hello > > The only question left is whether we also put the apidocs into the > pear package. I've looked around a bit but judging on the ones I have > installed this seems not be usual. It would also be a problem as > PEAR is done in the "default:package" and the apidocs in "site:site" > goal... > > bye, > > -christian- > > > Am Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:37 +0100 > schrieb Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]>: > > > > 1. The source .tar.gz and .zip contain the site/coverage-report/ > > > directory. While including the generated phpdoc could be > > > considered useful for people who just want to use log4php and not > > > rebuild it, the coverage report seems pretty useless to me. > > > > Yes, I think so. > > > > > 2. Should we distribute the apidocs alongside the .tar.gz even if > > > they could be generated by the user using maven? > > > > I would include API docs because the risk that a user needs em is > > quite high. > > > > > 3. The package-config.php and package.php are not included in > > > the .tar.gz and .zip. IIRC because they are not needed by the > > > endusers but it just came to my mind that this means that the > > > user cannot generate the phpdoc using "mvn site" as this would > > > fail due to the missing files. Ok, maybe phpdoc is generated before > > > the pear package, I don't remember, but it looks a bit > > > unprofessional if we distribute the pom.xml but know that it will > > > fail with errors, or? > > > > I agree again :-) IMHO a user should be able to run tests, coverage > > reports etc. all himself. > > This also goes for pear packages. > > > > > > > 4. The creation of the superfluous empty .jar will not annoy any of > > > the reviewers, or? I have no idea how to turn it off and it would > > > probably require an ant task to simply remove it. > > > > Voting is upon the assemblies itself, not on the creation process. We > > will not distribute this jar > > nor would we make it available for voting. Means, nobody will be > > annoyed of that. > > We can change the packaging mode to "dir" maybe and then only a > > directory will appear. > > If we want something else, we would have to create a custom lifecycle > > binding, but I don't think > > we need this at the moment. > > > > Cheers, > > Christian > > > > > > > > bye, > > > > > > -christian- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.39/2468 - Release Date: 10/30/09 > 15:18:00
