Re: [DISCUSS] cordova-plugin-device 3.0.0 Release

2024-05-13 Thread julio cesar sanchez
I’ve merged my two breaking PRs.

We could also merge https://github.com/apache/cordova-plugin-device/pull/62
It would require to set engines to cordova-android >= 7, which is very old
anyway

El lunes, 13 de mayo de 2024, Bryan Ellis  escribió:

> Does anyone have any reason to delay a release for cordova-plugin-device?
>
> * cordova-plugin-device (3.0.0)
>
> https://github.com/apache/cordova-plugin-device/compare/rel/2.1.0...master
>
> Any additional outstanding changes to land?
>
> If not, I will start the release process shortly
>


[DISCUSS] cordova-android 13.0.0 Release

2024-05-13 Thread Bryan Ellis
Does anyone have any reason to delay a release for cordova-android?

* cordova-android (13.0.0)

https://github.com/apache/cordova-android/compare/rel/12.0.1...master

Any additional outstanding changes to land?

If not, I will start the release process shortly


Re: [DISCUSS] cordova-plugin-device 2.2.0 Release

2024-05-13 Thread Bryan Ellis
This thread is closed and replaced with "[DISCUSS] cordova-plugin-device
3.0.0 Release" as there were no objections to target the next major release.


On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 10:29 PM julio cesar sanchez 
wrote:

> The breaking changes don’t really affect non deprecated platforms, so I
> don’t see a problem going with the major release directly.
>
> El El mar, 7 may 2024 a las 14:18, Bryan Ellis 
> escribió:
>
> > Are there any objections if we change the target release to a major
> > release?
> >
> > The main changes currently in the branch are:
> >
> > - Added bundled resources for privacy manifest in iOS.
> > - Fixed electron to use the correct engine version 2.1.0 in package.json.
> >
> > Would the corrected engine version necessitate a minor release,
> considering
> > we typically don't backport changes? If it isn't necessary, I might not
> > find any reasons to object to proceeding with a major release.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 7:01 PM julio cesar sanchez <
> jcesarmob...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I have two pending PRs, but they are breaking (removing deprecated
> > > platforms and unused code), so if they get merged, the release would be
> > > 3.0.0. not 2.2.0
> > >
> > > El mar, 7 may 2024 a las 7:17, Bryan Ellis ()
> > escribió:
> > >
> > > > Does anyone have any reason to delay a release for
> > cordova-plugin-device?
> > > >
> > > > * cordova-plugin-device (2.2.0)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/cordova-plugin-device/compare/rel/2.1.0...master
> > > >
> > > > Any additional outstanding changes to land?
> > > >
> > > > If not, I will start the release process shortly
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


[DISCUSS] cordova-plugin-device 3.0.0 Release

2024-05-13 Thread Bryan Ellis
Does anyone have any reason to delay a release for cordova-plugin-device?

* cordova-plugin-device (3.0.0)

https://github.com/apache/cordova-plugin-device/compare/rel/2.1.0...master

Any additional outstanding changes to land?

If not, I will start the release process shortly


Re: Notice for API 34 PR

2024-05-13 Thread Norman Breau

For record-keeping,

We've found a way to avoid checking in the wrapper while still 
maintaining the ability to use wide range of gradle versions to 
initialize the wrapper. This means the PR is no longer redistributing 
the JAR or any other gradle wrapper files.


On 2024-05-09 14:53, Norman Breau wrote:

Hi Team,

I just want to highlight some things about the Android 34 PR[4] to 
make sure it's reviewed properly.


Namely around the Gradle management changes that the PR introduces. To 
summarize, Cordova-android@12 and earlier utilised an empty 
wrapper.gradle file to create a wrapper task to install the wrapper of 
a given version. The empty wrapper.gradle file allowed gradle to do 
it's thing without importing AGP or any other modules that may require 
a specific gradle version. This in turn allowed end users to have 
pretty much any gradle version installed and we would be able to 
install the wrapper at the version that the android project needs.


However this strategy relies on the deprecated/removed -b flag which 
allowed you to specify a "build.gradle" file. This means we can't 
specify the wrapper.gradle file anymore.


The PR went through several iterations but I'll skip ahead to the 
current state.


As recommended by Gradle[1], the PR now includes the wrapper in the 
repository, including the .jar file. Cordova-Android tooling no longer 
uses the system gradle at all, and exclusively uses this wrapper. 
Otherwise the end-user would have to have a system gradle version that 
satisfies AGP requirements (currently that is Gradle >= 8.6). There 
was some concerns about redistributing this wrapper file and/or binary 
files with our releases, so I reviewed Apache Licensing policy[2].


I believe we are in the clear because the policy has instructions for 
how to bundle dependencies, and what is acceptable vs not acceptable. 
For context, the Gradle build tools is licensed[3] under Apache 2-0.


Under bundling Apache 2-0, the policy states:

"Assuming that the bundled dependency itself contains no bundled 
sub-components under other licenses, so the ALv2 applies uniformly to 
all files, there is no need to modify LICENSE. However, for 
completeness it is useful to list the products and their versions, as 
is done for products under other licenses.


If the dependency supplies a NOTICE file, its contents must be 
analyzed and the relevant portions bubbled up into the top-level 
NOTICE file."


Gradle Wrapper itself doesn't provide any LICENSE or NOTICE files 
along, so there isn't anything to bubble up in our NOTICE file. 
Therefore the only thing that is recommended (but not required) is to 
list the Gradle Wrapper and it's version within our own license file.


Additionally, Apache's instructions has Binary distribution section 
which reads as follows:


"What applies to canonical source distributions also applies to all 
redistributions, including binary redistributions:


All redistributions must obey the licensing requirements of the contents.

When assembling binary distributions, it is common to pull in and 
bundle additional dependencies which are not bundled with the source 
distribution. You must account for these additional dependencies in 
LICENSE and NOTICE. As a result, the LICENSE and NOTICE files for a 
binary distribution may differ from those in the source distribution 
it was built from.


In any case, the principle remains the same: LICENSE and NOTICE must 
exactly represent the contents of the distribution they reside in."


In otherwords, binary redistristributions are to be handled exactly 
the same way as source redistributions.


I just wanted to highlight this detail in case if there are further 
concerns that should be addressed before the PR is merged.


Cheers,

[1] 
https://docs.gradle.org/current/userguide/gradle_wrapper.html#sec:adding_wrapper

[2] https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html#bundle-asf-product
[3] https://docs.gradle.org/current/userguide/licenses.html
[4] https://github.com/apache/cordova-android/pull/1678



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org