Re: Editable files other than .bat and .sh files and CRs LFs
On 12/2/05, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought is was a discussion only about line endings To clarify, I am for using windows line endings in the zip file and unix line endings in the tar.gz file. I am against leaving out some of the files from the distros (i.e., they should have the same files, just different line endings). Agreed. The thought of leaving certain files out of each distribution never even crossed my mind. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' The Castor Project http://www.castor.org/ Apache Geronimo http://geronimo.apache.org/
Re: Editable files other than .bat and .sh files and CRs LFs
i don't particularly care about line endings but I think trying to make half of our distros unusable by half of our users by leaving out some of the scripts in each distro is pointless. What harm exactly is there in including all the scripts in both packages so you only need one for all your machines? This is going to hurt who how? My apologies if I sound too negative but I can't think of any reasons leaving out some of the scripts would be a good idea. thanks david jencks On Dec 1, 2005, at 7:21 PM, John Sisson wrote: Kevan Miller wrote: I'm probably generating more discussion than this topic merits, but simply generating files with CR/LF's and calling it a Windows distribution doesn't seem like enough. Unless Windows users were complaining, I'd just build LF-only distributions from all build platforms. Now, if we built a Windows distribution which contained only .bat files (no .sh files) and appropriate CR/LF's (and vice versa), then it seems like we're making an honest effort towards OS-specific distributions... I'm sure that would be much more involved than your current proposal. Discussion is good! This isn't that hard to do, as it is just a matter of excluding *.sh or *.bat in some fileset statements but I just realised the biggest problem is the IzPack installer. IzPack has support for selecting files in an installation pack based upon the operating system, but since you have the one set of files it is installing from (pack JARs inside the installation JAR) you need to perform fixcrlf processing at install time, the only ways I can think of to get around this are: * use ant during the install (IzPack provides ant integration), but it means ant needs to be bundled with it, so adds to the size of the installer * if on Windows, run a program in the izpack-process.xml file that converts line endings. * a windows build of the IzPack installer - kind of defeats the purpose of having a java installer AFAIK, Izpack doesn't provide a simple solution to this. Unless someone has a solution to the above IzPack issue, I will change my mind and say we should build only LF distributions. John I'm +1 for creating consistent distributions regardless of the build platform. I'm +0 for making zip files use CR/LF and not doing more to create OS-specific distributions... --kevan
Re: Editable files other than .bat and .sh files and CRs LFs
I thought is was a discussion only about line endings To clarify, I am for using windows line endings in the zip file and unix line endings in the tar.gz file. I am against leaving out some of the files from the distros (i.e., they should have the same files, just different line endings). -dain On Dec 2, 2005, at 1:11 AM, David Jencks wrote: i don't particularly care about line endings but I think trying to make half of our distros unusable by half of our users by leaving out some of the scripts in each distro is pointless. What harm exactly is there in including all the scripts in both packages so you only need one for all your machines? This is going to hurt who how? My apologies if I sound too negative but I can't think of any reasons leaving out some of the scripts would be a good idea. thanks david jencks On Dec 1, 2005, at 7:21 PM, John Sisson wrote: Kevan Miller wrote: I'm probably generating more discussion than this topic merits, but simply generating files with CR/LF's and calling it a Windows distribution doesn't seem like enough. Unless Windows users were complaining, I'd just build LF-only distributions from all build platforms. Now, if we built a Windows distribution which contained only .bat files (no .sh files) and appropriate CR/LF's (and vice versa), then it seems like we're making an honest effort towards OS- specific distributions... I'm sure that would be much more involved than your current proposal. Discussion is good! This isn't that hard to do, as it is just a matter of excluding *.sh or *.bat in some fileset statements but I just realised the biggest problem is the IzPack installer. IzPack has support for selecting files in an installation pack based upon the operating system, but since you have the one set of files it is installing from (pack JARs inside the installation JAR) you need to perform fixcrlf processing at install time, the only ways I can think of to get around this are: * use ant during the install (IzPack provides ant integration), but it means ant needs to be bundled with it, so adds to the size of the installer * if on Windows, run a program in the izpack-process.xml file that converts line endings. * a windows build of the IzPack installer - kind of defeats the purpose of having a java installer AFAIK, Izpack doesn't provide a simple solution to this. Unless someone has a solution to the above IzPack issue, I will change my mind and say we should build only LF distributions. John I'm +1 for creating consistent distributions regardless of the build platform. I'm +0 for making zip files use CR/LF and not doing more to create OS-specific distributions... --kevan
Re: Editable files other than .bat and .sh files and CRs LFs
This reflects my sentiment as well. Regards, Alan Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 12/2/2005 9:19 AM: I thought is was a discussion only about line endings To clarify, I am for using windows line endings in the zip file and unix line endings in the tar.gz file. I am against leaving out some of the files from the distros (i.e., they should have the same files, just different line endings). -dain On Dec 2, 2005, at 1:11 AM, David Jencks wrote: i don't particularly care about line endings but I think trying to make half of our distros unusable by half of our users by leaving out some of the scripts in each distro is pointless. What harm exactly is there in including all the scripts in both packages so you only need one for all your machines? This is going to hurt who how? My apologies if I sound too negative but I can't think of any reasons leaving out some of the scripts would be a good idea. thanks david jencks On Dec 1, 2005, at 7:21 PM, John Sisson wrote: Kevan Miller wrote: I'm probably generating more discussion than this topic merits, but simply generating files with CR/LF's and calling it a Windows distribution doesn't seem like enough. Unless Windows users were complaining, I'd just build LF-only distributions from all build platforms. Now, if we built a Windows distribution which contained only .bat files (no .sh files) and appropriate CR/LF's (and vice versa), then it seems like we're making an honest effort towards OS- specific distributions... I'm sure that would be much more involved than your current proposal. Discussion is good! This isn't that hard to do, as it is just a matter of excluding *.sh or *.bat in some fileset statements but I just realised the biggest problem is the IzPack installer. IzPack has support for selecting files in an installation pack based upon the operating system, but since you have the one set of files it is installing from (pack JARs inside the installation JAR) you need to perform fixcrlf processing at install time, the only ways I can think of to get around this are: * use ant during the install (IzPack provides ant integration), but it means ant needs to be bundled with it, so adds to the size of the installer * if on Windows, run a program in the izpack-process.xml file that converts line endings. * a windows build of the IzPack installer - kind of defeats the purpose of having a java installer AFAIK, Izpack doesn't provide a simple solution to this. Unless someone has a solution to the above IzPack issue, I will change my mind and say we should build only LF distributions. John I'm +1 for creating consistent distributions regardless of the build platform. I'm +0 for making zip files use CR/LF and not doing more to create OS-specific distributions... --kevan
Re: Editable files other than .bat and .sh files and CRs LFs
Sounds good to me. Aaron P.S. The real solution is don't use vi :) On 12/1/05, John Sisson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Currently if you build a Geronimo distribution on Windows, and install on a *NIX platform, files such XML and property files will contain carriage returns. This is ugly if you are attempting to edit an XML plan using something like the vi editor that displays the carriage returns as ^M. This also is a problem for the viewable files in the root directory of the install, such as the README.txt file. We could fix this by using the fixcrlf task (in the same place I did for GERONIMO-1232) and making the assumption that the zip distribution will only be used on Windows and the tar.gz distributions only used on *NIX platforms. This would allow people to use native editors on their platform (e.g. vi or notepad on windows) without having any problems. Is this a reasonable assumption to make? Of course we could explicitly state on the download page what the difference between the distributions would be. John Here is an example of me trying to edit an XML file using vi on Solaris (when built from Windows): ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8?^M !--^M ^M Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation^M ^M Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the License);^M you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.^M You may obtain a copy of the License at^M ^M http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0^M ^M Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software^M distributed under the License is distributed on an AS IS BASIS,^M WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.^M See the License for the specific language governing permissions and^M limitations under the License.^M --^M ^M !-- $Rev: 292333 $ $Date: 2005-09-29 08:09:15 +1000 (Thu, 29 Sep 2005) $ --^M ^M !--^M A security realm available to be used by sample applications.^M ^M
Re: Editable files other than .bat and .sh files and CRs LFs
Rather than using the archive format to determine the linebreak convention, I would prefer an explicit build option (build for CR or build for CR/LF). Also, having Windows specific archive(s) might imply that there is more OS-specific behavior than we really have... All of our previous Milestone distributions have used CR's only, has this posed a problem to Windows users? It hasn't really been a problem for me developing on a Windows platform... I wonder if Geronimo users would be happy with CR-only distributions until we're ready to offer truly integrated Windows-specific behavior... --kevan On 12/1/05, John Sisson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Currently if you build a Geronimo distribution on Windows, and installon a *NIX platform, files such XML and property files will containcarriage returns.This is ugly if you are attempting to edit an XML plan using something like the vi editor that displays the carriage returns as ^M.This also is a problem for the viewable files in the root directory ofthe install, such as the README.txt file.We could fix this by using the fixcrlf task (in the same place I did for GERONIMO-1232) and making the assumption that the zip distribution willonly be used on Windows and the tar.gz distributions only used on *NIXplatforms. This would allow people to use native editors on their platform (e.g. vi or notepad on windows) without having any problems.Is this a reasonable assumption to make?Of course we could explicitlystate on the download page what the difference between the distributions would be.JohnHere is an example of me trying to edit an XML file using vi on Solaris(when built from Windows):?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8?^M!--^M ^MCopyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation^M^MLicensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the License);^Myou may not use this file except in compliance with the License.^M You may obtain a copy of the License at^M^M http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0^M ^MUnless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software^M distributed under the License is distributed on an AS IS BASIS,^MWITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express orimplied.^MSee the License for the specific language governing permissions and^M limitations under the License.^M--^M^M!-- $Rev: 292333 $ $Date: 2005-09-29 08:09:15 +1000 (Thu, 29 Sep 2005)$ --^M^M!--^MA security realm available to be used by sample applications.^M ^M
Re: Editable files other than .bat and .sh files and CRs LFs
Kevan Miller wrote: Rather than using the archive format to determine the linebreak convention, I would prefer an explicit build option (build for CR or build for CR/LF). Also, having Windows specific archive(s) might imply that there is more OS-specific behavior than we really have... All of our previous Milestone distributions have used CR's only, has this posed a problem to Windows users? It hasn't really been a problem for me developing on a Windows platform... I wonder if Geronimo users would be happy with CR-only distributions until we're ready to offer truly integrated Windows-specific behavior... I think you mean LF instead of CR in your last paragraph. I assume that all the previous distributions used LF's because they were built on non-Windows platforms. If I build Geronimo on Windows today the *.xml, *.txt, etc. files in the distribution files will contain CR/LF's. When that distribution is used on a non-Windows platform the CR's cause the problem demonstrated in my vi example in the original mail. In summary, the contents of the distribution files are not the same between builds on Windows and non-Windows platforms, which is bad. It should not matter what platform a release is built on. Since this is a 1.0 release, now is the opportunity to do better than some other projects and provide the files with the correct linebreak convention for *NIX and Windows platforms to ensure a positive user experience (e.g. Windows users don't get prompted to convert to DOS format with some editors when they edit files). I don't think we want to be providing two forms of zip and tar.gz files one with CR and the other with CR/LF. *NIX users should always use the tar.gz files so they get permissions set on files, therefore it seems reasonable to assume that the zip distribution will only be used by Windows users. Thoughts? John --kevan On 12/1/05, *John Sisson* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Currently if you build a Geronimo distribution on Windows, and install on a *NIX platform, files such XML and property files will contain carriage returns. This is ugly if you are attempting to edit an XML plan using something like the vi editor that displays the carriage returns as ^M. This also is a problem for the viewable files in the root directory of the install, such as the README.txt file. We could fix this by using the fixcrlf task (in the same place I did for GERONIMO-1232) and making the assumption that the zip distribution will only be used on Windows and the tar.gz distributions only used on *NIX platforms. This would allow people to use native editors on their platform (e.g. vi or notepad on windows) without having any problems. Is this a reasonable assumption to make? Of course we could explicitly state on the download page what the difference between the distributions would be. John Here is an example of me trying to edit an XML file using vi on Solaris (when built from Windows): ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8?^M !--^M ^M Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation^M ^M Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the License);^M you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.^M You may obtain a copy of the License at^M ^M http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0^M http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0%5EM ^M Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software^M distributed under the License is distributed on an AS IS BASIS,^M WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.^M See the License for the specific language governing permissions and^M limitations under the License.^M --^M ^M !-- $Rev: 292333 $ $Date: 2005-09-29 08:09:15 +1000 (Thu, 29 Sep 2005) $ --^M ^M !--^M A security realm available to be used by sample applications.^M ^M
Re: Editable files other than .bat and .sh files and CRs LFs
+1 to using CR/LF in zip files and LF in tar.gz files -dain On Dec 1, 2005, at 2:01 PM, John Sisson wrote: Kevan Miller wrote: Rather than using the archive format to determine the linebreak convention, I would prefer an explicit build option (build for CR or build for CR/LF). Also, having Windows specific archive(s) might imply that there is more OS-specific behavior than we really have... All of our previous Milestone distributions have used CR's only, has this posed a problem to Windows users? It hasn't really been a problem for me developing on a Windows platform... I wonder if Geronimo users would be happy with CR-only distributions until we're ready to offer truly integrated Windows-specific behavior... I think you mean LF instead of CR in your last paragraph. I assume that all the previous distributions used LF's because they were built on non-Windows platforms. If I build Geronimo on Windows today the *.xml, *.txt, etc. files in the distribution files will contain CR/LF's. When that distribution is used on a non-Windows platform the CR's cause the problem demonstrated in my vi example in the original mail. In summary, the contents of the distribution files are not the same between builds on Windows and non-Windows platforms, which is bad. It should not matter what platform a release is built on. Since this is a 1.0 release, now is the opportunity to do better than some other projects and provide the files with the correct linebreak convention for *NIX and Windows platforms to ensure a positive user experience (e.g. Windows users don't get prompted to convert to DOS format with some editors when they edit files). I don't think we want to be providing two forms of zip and tar.gz files one with CR and the other with CR/LF. *NIX users should always use the tar.gz files so they get permissions set on files, therefore it seems reasonable to assume that the zip distribution will only be used by Windows users. Thoughts? John --kevan On 12/1/05, *John Sisson* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Currently if you build a Geronimo distribution on Windows, and install on a *NIX platform, files such XML and property files will contain carriage returns. This is ugly if you are attempting to edit an XML plan using something like the vi editor that displays the carriage returns as ^M. This also is a problem for the viewable files in the root directory of the install, such as the README.txt file. We could fix this by using the fixcrlf task (in the same place I did for GERONIMO-1232) and making the assumption that the zip distribution will only be used on Windows and the tar.gz distributions only used on *NIX platforms. This would allow people to use native editors on their platform (e.g. vi or notepad on windows) without having any problems. Is this a reasonable assumption to make? Of course we could explicitly state on the download page what the difference between the distributions would be. John Here is an example of me trying to edit an XML file using vi on Solaris (when built from Windows): ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8?^M !--^M ^M Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation^M ^M Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the License);^M you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.^M You may obtain a copy of the License at^M ^M http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0^M http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0%5EM ^M Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software^M distributed under the License is distributed on an AS IS BASIS,^M WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.^M See the License for the specific language governing permissions and^M limitations under the License.^M --^M ^M !-- $Rev: 292333 $ $Date: 2005-09-29 08:09:15 +1000 (Thu, 29 Sep 2005) $ --^M ^M !--^M A security realm available to be used by sample applications.^M ^M
Re: Editable files other than .bat and .sh files and CRs LFs
On 12/1/05, John Sisson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevan Miller wrote: Rather than using the archive format to determine the linebreak convention, I would prefer an explicit build option (build for CR or build for CR/LF). Also, having Windows specific archive(s) might imply that there is more OS-specific behavior than we really have... All of our previous Milestone distributions have used CR's only, has this posed a problem to Windows users? It hasn't really been a problem for me developing on a Windows platform... I wonder if Geronimo users would be happy with CR-only distributions until we're ready to offer truly integrated Windows-specific behavior...I think you mean LF instead of CR in your last paragraph.I assume that all the previous distributions used LF's because they were built onnon-Windows platforms.If I build Geronimo on Windows today the *.xml,*.txt, etc. files in the distributionfiles will contain CR/LF's.When that distribution is used on a non-Windows platform the CR's cause theproblem demonstrated in my vi example in the original mail. You are correct. I knew I was going to get myself turned around... I understand the problem you are addressing... In summary, the contents of the distribution files are not the samebetween builds on Windows and non-Windows platforms, which is bad.It should not matter what platform a release is built on. Totally agree. Since this is a 1.0 release, now is the opportunity to do better thansome other projects and provide the files with the correct linebreak convention for *NIX and Windows platforms to ensure a positive userexperience (e.g. Windows users don't get prompted to convert to DOSformat with some editors when they edit files).I don't think we want to be providing two forms of zip and tar.gz filesone with CR and the other with CR/LF.*NIX users should always use thetar.gz files so they get permissions set on files, therefore it seemsreasonable to assume that the zip distribution will only be used by Windows users. I'm probably generating more discussion than this topic merits, but simply generating files with CR/LF's and calling it a Windows distribution doesn't seem like enough. Unless Windows users were complaining, I'd just build LF-only distributions from all build platforms. Now, if we built a Windows distribution which contained only .bat files (no .sh files) and appropriate CR/LF's (and vice versa), then it seems like we're making an honest effort towards OS-specific distributions... I'm sure that would be much more involved than your current proposal. I'm +1 for creating consistent distributions regardless of the build platform. I'm +0 for making zip files use CR/LF and not doing more to create OS-specific distributions... --kevan Thoughts?John --kevan On 12/1/05, *John Sisson* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Currently if you build a Geronimo distribution on Windows, and install on a *NIX platform, files such XML and property files will contain carriage returns. This is ugly if you are attempting to edit an XML plan using something like the vi editor that displays the carriage returns as ^M. This also is a problem for the viewable files in the root directory of the install, such as the README.txt file. We could fix this by using the fixcrlf task (in the same place I did for GERONIMO-1232) and making the assumption that the zip distribution will only be used on Windows and the tar.gz distributions only used on *NIX platforms. This would allow people to use native editors on their platform (e.g. vi or notepad on windows) without having any problems. Is this a reasonable assumption to make?Of course we could explicitly state on the download page what the difference between the distributions would be. John Here is an example of me trying to edit an XML file using vi on Solaris (when built from Windows): ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8?^M !--^M ^M Copyright 2004 The Apache Software Foundation^M ^M Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the License);^M you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.^M You may obtain a copy of the License at^M ^M http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0^M http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0%5EM ^M Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software^M distributed under the License is distributed on an AS IS BASIS,^M WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.^M See the License for the specific language governing permissions and^M limitations under the License.^M --^M ^M !-- $Rev: 292333 $ $Date: 2005-09-29 08:09:15 +1000 (Thu, 29 Sep 2005) $ --^M ^M !--^M A security realm available to be used by sample applications.^M ^M
Re: Editable files other than .bat and .sh files and CRs LFs
Kevan Miller wrote: I'm probably generating more discussion than this topic merits, but simply generating files with CR/LF's and calling it a Windows distribution doesn't seem like enough. Unless Windows users were complaining, I'd just build LF-only distributions from all build platforms. Now, if we built a Windows distribution which contained only .bat files (no .sh files) and appropriate CR/LF's (and vice versa), then it seems like we're making an honest effort towards OS-specific distributions... I'm sure that would be much more involved than your current proposal. Discussion is good! This isn't that hard to do, as it is just a matter of excluding *.sh or *.bat in some fileset statements but I just realised the biggest problem is the IzPack installer. IzPack has support for selecting files in an installation pack based upon the operating system, but since you have the one set of files it is installing from (pack JARs inside the installation JAR) you need to perform fixcrlf processing at install time, the only ways I can think of to get around this are: * use ant during the install (IzPack provides ant integration), but it means ant needs to be bundled with it, so adds to the size of the installer * if on Windows, run a program in the izpack-process.xml file that converts line endings. * a windows build of the IzPack installer - kind of defeats the purpose of having a java installer AFAIK, Izpack doesn't provide a simple solution to this. Unless someone has a solution to the above IzPack issue, I will change my mind and say we should build only LF distributions. John I'm +1 for creating consistent distributions regardless of the build platform. I'm +0 for making zip files use CR/LF and not doing more to create OS-specific distributions... --kevan
Re: Editable files other than .bat and .sh files and CRs LFs
On 12/1/05, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 to using CR/LF in zip files and LF in tar.gz files +1 Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' The Castor Project http://www.castor.org/ Apache Geronimo http://geronimo.apache.org/
