David M Johnson wrote:
On May 1, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
Bleh. I am still very weary of the whole "download these dependencies
on your own" situation. Especially if we can't even keep the proper
version in the repository to develop against and just not ship it in
the release. People are going to start doing the wrong thing, like
getting the wrong Hibernate version maybe?
We can keep Hibernate in the repo and develop against it, but we just
can't ship it.
ahhh, that is a huge relief. i thought the proposal was suggesting that
we would have to do the same thing for development, which would have
made things even worse.
I am fine with all the other stuff (#1, #3, #4), but #3 still has me
worried. I don't see the benefit in replacing Hibernate long term
with something else just because of an opensource licensing issue and
I hate to think about putting up with this external downloads thing
forever. Maybe I am just a bitter ball though?
#2 has me worried as well. The Apache LGPL policy is not user-friendly
at all, but it should not impact our work as developers -- remove
unshippables is just a release engineering and installation thing.
got it, that is at least more manageable.
maybe what we can do is to actually package the external dependencies
ourselves and serve them up from either java.net or just
rollerweblogger.org. that way it's not as complicated as telling the
user to "go get Hibernate x.x.x, and javamail x.x.x, and ..." and
instead we would just give them a simple bundle which they would unzip
in the same location as the release file they got from Apache and they
would be all set.
not full proof, but it's at least better than asking users to get the
dependencies themselves.
And by the way, there's nothing stopping other projects and companies
from shipping Roller "distributions" that include everything you need to
run Roller. For example, my Blogapps project ships a Roller distribution
called the "Blogapps Server" that includes Roller, JSPWiki, Tomcat and
HSQLDB.
true.
-- Allen
- Dave
