Hallo
Am Sun, 1 Nov 2009 20:22:16 +1000
schrieb "Gavin" <[email protected]>:
> 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).
I don't think that they will let us in as PEAR has their own licence
and code style policies. In addition they already have their PEAR_Log
and IIRC don't want more than one package for a task.
But we should keep it in mind, maybe they would accept it or we can
make some facade to be compatible.
> Regarding the new mvn targets, do you want me to extend buildbot to
> perform some more tests to include building these targets?
Currently "mvn site assembly:assembly" can be used to build all
packages. Is buildbot able to check if the two -src.tar.gz/zip and the
-pear.tgz have been built and e.g. are at least 50kb big or similar?
> I can, also get it to deploy to snapshots to Nexus repository staging
> area (repository.apache.org) , so you want me to do that?
Sounds like it couldn't hurt. The relevant files are the above mentioned
target/Apache_log4php-2.0.0incubating-pear.tgz
target/apache-log4php-2.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-src.tar.gz
target/apache-log4php-2.0.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT-src.zip
> Anything else I can do?
Of course! Buildbot is still broken due to the problems with
the pdo-sqlite module: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2294
If I can be of help, contact me via Jabber: [email protected]
> 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.
The PEAR package has an internal flag stabilit=alpha for snapshots but
I see if I can somehow get the snapshot into the file name as well.
bye,
-christian-
> 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
>
