subject:"Installers"

Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0

2019-04-05 Thread Geertjan Wielenga

Yes and the difference there is that the Snap package is officially
supported by Apache NetBeans. Maybe if that screenshot of Apache NetBeans
10 can be changed to 11.0, then we should definitely add it to the
Downloads page.

Again great work by Laszlo by the way. :-)

Gj


On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 5:47 PM John Neffenger  wrote:

> On 4/5/19 7:51 AM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> > OK, added info about the installers as a tip on the Download page:
> >
> > https://netbeans.apache.org/download/nb110/nb110.html
>
> Should we also mention the Snap package for Linux users?
>
> Apache NetBeans (incubating)
> https://snapcraft.io/netbeans
>
> It was really nice to find my snap install of NetBeans 10.0 already
> upgraded to NetBeans 11.0 when I woke up this morning. It also has the
> comforting green check mark on the publisher name showing that it's a
> "verified account."
>
> name:  netbeans
> summary:   Apache NetBeans IDE (incubating)
> publisher: Apache NetBeans (incubating) (apache-netbeans✓)
> contact:   https://lists.apache.org/list.html?us...@netbeans.apache.org
> license:   unset
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0

2019-04-05 Thread John Neffenger


On 4/5/19 7:51 AM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:

OK, added info about the installers as a tip on the Download page:

https://netbeans.apache.org/download/nb110/nb110.html


Should we also mention the Snap package for Linux users?

Apache NetBeans (incubating)
https://snapcraft.io/netbeans

It was really nice to find my snap install of NetBeans 10.0 already 
upgraded to NetBeans 11.0 when I woke up this morning. It also has the 
comforting green check mark on the publisher name showing that it's a 
"verified account."


name:  netbeans
summary:   Apache NetBeans IDE (incubating)
publisher: Apache NetBeans (incubating) (apache-netbeans✓)
contact:   https://lists.apache.org/list.html?us...@netbeans.apache.org
license:   unset

Thanks,
John

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

For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists

Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0

2019-04-05 Thread reema . taneja

Hi,  I will not be merging this branch to master, it is pushed to my 
fork only for hosting the binaries temporarily.


Thanks,

Reema


On 05/04/19 3:28 PM, Tushar Joshi wrote:

I can see the binary files are committed and pushed to a code branch on
github fork of NetBeans.
In my opinion this is an anti-pattern and binary files shall not be
committed to code repository (they add to the size of the repository).
Ideally all binaries coming out of build process shall be part of the
release (separate functionality  tab) created on Github.

I believe when the installer creation code is pushed to the repository as
Geertjan mentions, then all these binary files will be available to be
added to the release section of NetBeans.

with regards
 Tushar

Tushar Joshi, Nagpur: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tusharjoshi.com=DwIFaQ=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE=I_-Y15BecdUmuYLJbvbi0hFUs7JgHZnV_jPFSP8DQF0=oEcFqq0J0RBRe11dpitSUEtJ6BFdtGDWnMRoX-JB_mg=LWIwiyJ66DCmVEzClLgf0JE3GY3XqfSUDBCwUe-lYRg=

* MCSD_NET C#, SCJP, RHCE, ZCE, PMP, CSM, SAFe, PRINCE2

* Senior Architect @ Persistent Systems 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.persistent.com=DwIFaQ=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE=I_-Y15BecdUmuYLJbvbi0hFUs7JgHZnV_jPFSP8DQF0=oEcFqq0J0RBRe11dpitSUEtJ6BFdtGDWnMRoX-JB_mg=cZZSndo6gLHyD4OpmoZNIx_C-p-1G7L0nLh6I2xFbVE=
* LinkedIn: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_tusharvjoshi=DwIFaQ=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE=I_-Y15BecdUmuYLJbvbi0hFUs7JgHZnV_jPFSP8DQF0=oEcFqq0J0RBRe11dpitSUEtJ6BFdtGDWnMRoX-JB_mg=bReg2Ns0SUJybcSZSh5Ufg1nrMNqGNGDFGiYhXzO8KQ=



On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 2:38 PM Christian Lenz 
wrote:


Yes sure, I only wanted to say, that smth changed/smth is missing from
using NetBeans > 9. So there where no problems with the old oracle NetBeans
until 8.2 (Maybe they where signed correctly) and no problems with NetBeans
9. It started happening with NetBeans 10. But to end my discussion, I will
create a ticket or a new thread about that problem.


Cheers

Chris



Von: Pete Whelpton
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. April 2019 11:05
An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0

No worries :)   My understanding (I'm 100% sure that this my understanding
is correct) is that digital signing weights the algorithm more in favour of
not displaying a warning, but the early adopters (first few people to
download) may still get the warning until a sufficient level of "trust" has
been built up.

All the best,

P

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 10:01 AM Christian Lenz 
wrote:


So signing is missing here, if I understand it correctly. Thx for the

link

Pete.


Cheers

Chris



Von: Pete Whelpton
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. April 2019 10:29
An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0

The smartscreen warning is mentioned in the Smartscreen wikipedia page,
under criticism:  
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Microsoft-5FSmartScreen=DwIFaQ=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE=I_-Y15BecdUmuYLJbvbi0hFUs7JgHZnV_jPFSP8DQF0=oEcFqq0J0RBRe11dpitSUEtJ6BFdtGDWnMRoX-JB_mg=o5yargrRqPHPRiMpiV4zB8vTPiFFnnkkgSsSvRXcNUA=

*SmartScreen Filter creates a problem for small software vendors when

they

distribute an updated version of installation or binary files over the
internet. Whenever an updated version is released, SmartScreen responds

by

stating that the file is not commonly downloaded and can therefore

install

harmful files on your system. This can be fixed by the author digitally
signing the distributed software. Reputation is then based not only on a
file's hash but on the signing certificate as well. A common distribution
method for authors to bypass SmartScreen warnings is to pack their
installation program (for example Setup.exe) into a Z
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Zip-5F-28file-5Fformat-29=DwIFaQ=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE=I_-Y15BecdUmuYLJbvbi0hFUs7JgHZnV_jPFSP8DQF0=oEcFqq0J0RBRe11dpitSUEtJ6BFdtGDWnMRoX-JB_mg=VUBTL_tboI-QXfVwyop7feza-DTeoRaWFgK0suEh-a8=>ip-Archive
 and

distribute

it that way, though this can confuse non-expert users.  *



On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:24 AM Christian Lenz 
wrote:


Hi,

I’m fine with adding this with a comment that those installer are not
official.

One Issue here is, when I wanted to start the installer, Windows says
again this message: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ibb.co_2Nr8Q43=DwIFaQ=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE=I_-Y15BecdUmuYLJbvbi0hFUs7JgHZnV_jPFSP8DQF0=oEcFqq0J0RBRe11dpitSUEtJ6BFdtGDWnMRoX-JB_mg=D90WfYDjxYKC1SLLapbvOtmdbxSw7KspPsU6_UKwNjg=.
 This happened also for
NetBeans > 9. Until NetBeans 9, I didn’t have this Problem. So smth

changed

in the behaviour of the NetBeans executables/binaries that Windows will
show this message. I

Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0

2019-04-05 Thread Tushar Joshi

>
> explicitly linking to the above on the page below so long as we clear
> state that these are not official Apache NetBeans installers, though that
> they should be seen as experimental installers for the next release:
>
> https://netbeans.apache.org/download/nb110/nb110.html
>
> Do we agree with this? Interested in responses and if everything is
> favorable and no objections, will add the info as described above to the
> page above in 24 hours.


+1 for this.

with regards
Tushar




On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 1:24 PM Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Reema has put the installers created from the installer sources in her pull
> request on Apache NetBeans GitHub in her repo:
>
>
> https://github.com/rtaneja1/incubator-netbeans/tree/installer-bin-11vc4/nbbuild/installer/binaries
>
> She also has a process whereby the installers can be generated as part of
> the build.
>
> However, since we have not checked in the sources of the installer into
> Apache NetBeans GitHub and we have not included these convenience binaries
> as part of the vote threads, the installers above can not be seen as
> official Apache NetBeans installers -- though that should be the aim for
> the next releases.
>
> However, as discussed in other threads some time ago, there's nothing wrong
> with explicitly linking to the above on the page below so long as we clear
> state that these are not official Apache NetBeans installers, though that
> they should be seen as experimental installers for the next release:
>
> https://netbeans.apache.org/download/nb110/nb110.html
>
> Do we agree with this? Interested in responses and if everything is
> favorable and no objections, will add the info as described above to the
> page above in 24 hours.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gj
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0

2019-04-05 Thread Wade Chandler

+1 link for now. Users! Users everywhere!

:-)

Wade

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019, 03:54 Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Reema has put the installers created from the installer sources in her pull
> request on Apache NetBeans GitHub in her repo:
>
>
> https://github.com/rtaneja1/incubator-netbeans/tree/installer-bin-11vc4/nbbuild/installer/binaries
>
> She also has a process whereby the installers can be generated as part of
> the build.
>
> However, since we have not checked in the sources of the installer into
> Apache NetBeans GitHub and we have not included these convenience binaries
> as part of the vote threads, the installers above can not be seen as
> official Apache NetBeans installers -- though that should be the aim for
> the next releases.
>
> However, as discussed in other threads some time ago, there's nothing wrong
> with explicitly linking to the above on the page below so long as we clear
> state that these are not official Apache NetBeans installers, though that
> they should be seen as experimental installers for the next release:
>
> https://netbeans.apache.org/download/nb110/nb110.html
>
> Do we agree with this? Interested in responses and if everything is
> favorable and no objections, will add the info as described above to the
> page above in 24 hours.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gj
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0

2019-04-05 Thread Tushar Joshi

I can see the binary files are committed and pushed to a code branch on
github fork of NetBeans.
In my opinion this is an anti-pattern and binary files shall not be
committed to code repository (they add to the size of the repository).
Ideally all binaries coming out of build process shall be part of the
release (separate functionality  tab) created on Github.

I believe when the installer creation code is pushed to the repository as
Geertjan mentions, then all these binary files will be available to be
added to the release section of NetBeans.

with regards
Tushar

Tushar Joshi, Nagpur: http://www.tusharjoshi.com

* MCSD_NET C#, SCJP, RHCE, ZCE, PMP, CSM, SAFe, PRINCE2

* Senior Architect @ Persistent Systems http://www.persistent.com
* LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tusharvjoshi



On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 2:38 PM Christian Lenz 
wrote:

> Yes sure, I only wanted to say, that smth changed/smth is missing from
> using NetBeans > 9. So there where no problems with the old oracle NetBeans
> until 8.2 (Maybe they where signed correctly) and no problems with NetBeans
> 9. It started happening with NetBeans 10. But to end my discussion, I will
> create a ticket or a new thread about that problem.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Von: Pete Whelpton
> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. April 2019 11:05
> An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0
>
> No worries :)   My understanding (I'm 100% sure that this my understanding
> is correct) is that digital signing weights the algorithm more in favour of
> not displaying a warning, but the early adopters (first few people to
> download) may still get the warning until a sufficient level of "trust" has
> been built up.
>
> All the best,
>
> P
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 10:01 AM Christian Lenz 
> wrote:
>
> > So signing is missing here, if I understand it correctly. Thx for the
> link
> > Pete.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > Von: Pete Whelpton
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 5. April 2019 10:29
> > An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0
> >
> > The smartscreen warning is mentioned in the Smartscreen wikipedia page,
> > under criticism:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SmartScreen
> >
> > *SmartScreen Filter creates a problem for small software vendors when
> they
> > distribute an updated version of installation or binary files over the
> > internet. Whenever an updated version is released, SmartScreen responds
> by
> > stating that the file is not commonly downloaded and can therefore
> install
> > harmful files on your system. This can be fixed by the author digitally
> > signing the distributed software. Reputation is then based not only on a
> > file's hash but on the signing certificate as well. A common distribution
> > method for authors to bypass SmartScreen warnings is to pack their
> > installation program (for example Setup.exe) into a Z
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_(file_format)>ip-Archive and
> distribute
> > it that way, though this can confuse non-expert users.  *
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:24 AM Christian Lenz 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I’m fine with adding this with a comment that those installer are not
> > > official.
> > >
> > > One Issue here is, when I wanted to start the installer, Windows says
> > > again this message: https://ibb.co/2Nr8Q43. This happened also for
> > > NetBeans > 9. Until NetBeans 9, I didn’t have this Problem. So smth
> > changed
> > > in the behaviour of the NetBeans executables/binaries that Windows will
> > > show this message. I already gave this info in another thread. This
> will
> > > only happen, when I download NetBeans, fresh and new. But when I delete
> > the
> > > whole folder and the whole dependent directories (userdir, cache), it
> > will
> > > show the message again.
> > >
> > > Should I create a new thread?
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Von: Geertjan Wielenga
> > > Gesendet: Freitag, 5. April 2019 09:54
> > > An: dev
> > > Betreff: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Reema has put the installers created from the installer sources in her
> > pull
> > > request on Apache NetBeans GitHub in her repo:
> > >
> > >
> &

Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0

2019-04-05 Thread Geertjan Wielenga

NetBeans 9 did not have installers at all...

Gj

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 at 11:08, Christian Lenz  wrote:

> Yes sure, I only wanted to say, that smth changed/smth is missing from
> using NetBeans > 9. So there where no problems with the old oracle NetBeans
> until 8.2 (Maybe they where signed correctly) and no problems with NetBeans
> 9. It started happening with NetBeans 10. But to end my discussion, I will
> create a ticket or a new thread about that problem.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Von: Pete Whelpton
> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. April 2019 11:05
> An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0
>
> No worries :)   My understanding (I'm 100% sure that this my understanding
> is correct) is that digital signing weights the algorithm more in favour of
> not displaying a warning, but the early adopters (first few people to
> download) may still get the warning until a sufficient level of "trust" has
> been built up.
>
> All the best,
>
> P
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 10:01 AM Christian Lenz 
> wrote:
>
> > So signing is missing here, if I understand it correctly. Thx for the
> link
> > Pete.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > Von: Pete Whelpton
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 5. April 2019 10:29
> > An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0
> >
> > The smartscreen warning is mentioned in the Smartscreen wikipedia page,
> > under criticism:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SmartScreen
> >
> > *SmartScreen Filter creates a problem for small software vendors when
> they
> > distribute an updated version of installation or binary files over the
> > internet. Whenever an updated version is released, SmartScreen responds
> by
> > stating that the file is not commonly downloaded and can therefore
> install
> > harmful files on your system. This can be fixed by the author digitally
> > signing the distributed software. Reputation is then based not only on a
> > file's hash but on the signing certificate as well. A common distribution
> > method for authors to bypass SmartScreen warnings is to pack their
> > installation program (for example Setup.exe) into a Z
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_(file_format)>ip-Archive and
> distribute
> > it that way, though this can confuse non-expert users.  *
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:24 AM Christian Lenz 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I’m fine with adding this with a comment that those installer are not
> > > official.
> > >
> > > One Issue here is, when I wanted to start the installer, Windows says
> > > again this message: https://ibb.co/2Nr8Q43. This happened also for
> > > NetBeans > 9. Until NetBeans 9, I didn’t have this Problem. So smth
> > changed
> > > in the behaviour of the NetBeans executables/binaries that Windows will
> > > show this message. I already gave this info in another thread. This
> will
> > > only happen, when I download NetBeans, fresh and new. But when I delete
> > the
> > > whole folder and the whole dependent directories (userdir, cache), it
> > will
> > > show the message again.
> > >
> > > Should I create a new thread?
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Von: Geertjan Wielenga
> > > Gesendet: Freitag, 5. April 2019 09:54
> > > An: dev
> > > Betreff: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Reema has put the installers created from the installer sources in her
> > pull
> > > request on Apache NetBeans GitHub in her repo:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/rtaneja1/incubator-netbeans/tree/installer-bin-11vc4/nbbuild/installer/binaries
> > >
> > > She also has a process whereby the installers can be generated as part
> of
> > > the build.
> > >
> > > However, since we have not checked in the sources of the installer into
> > > Apache NetBeans GitHub and we have not included these convenience
> > binaries
> > > as part of the vote threads, the installers above can not be seen as
> > > official Apache NetBeans installers -- though that should be the aim
> for
> > > the next releases.
> > >
> > > However, as discussed in other threads some time ago, there's nothing
> > wrong
> > > with explicitly linking to the above on the page below so long as we
> > clear
> > > state that these are not official Apache NetBeans installers, though
> that
> > > they should be seen as experimental installers for the next release:
> > >
> > > https://netbeans.apache.org/download/nb110/nb110.html
> > >
> > > Do we agree with this? Interested in responses and if everything is
> > > favorable and no objections, will add the info as described above to
> the
> > > page above in 24 hours.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Gj
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

AW: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0

2019-04-05 Thread Christian Lenz

Yes sure, I only wanted to say, that smth changed/smth is missing from using 
NetBeans > 9. So there where no problems with the old oracle NetBeans until 8.2 
(Maybe they where signed correctly) and no problems with NetBeans 9. It started 
happening with NetBeans 10. But to end my discussion, I will create a ticket or 
a new thread about that problem.


Cheers

Chris



Von: Pete Whelpton
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. April 2019 11:05
An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0

No worries :)   My understanding (I'm 100% sure that this my understanding
is correct) is that digital signing weights the algorithm more in favour of
not displaying a warning, but the early adopters (first few people to
download) may still get the warning until a sufficient level of "trust" has
been built up.

All the best,

P

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 10:01 AM Christian Lenz 
wrote:

> So signing is missing here, if I understand it correctly. Thx for the link
> Pete.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Von: Pete Whelpton
> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. April 2019 10:29
> An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0
>
> The smartscreen warning is mentioned in the Smartscreen wikipedia page,
> under criticism:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SmartScreen
>
> *SmartScreen Filter creates a problem for small software vendors when they
> distribute an updated version of installation or binary files over the
> internet. Whenever an updated version is released, SmartScreen responds by
> stating that the file is not commonly downloaded and can therefore install
> harmful files on your system. This can be fixed by the author digitally
> signing the distributed software. Reputation is then based not only on a
> file's hash but on the signing certificate as well. A common distribution
> method for authors to bypass SmartScreen warnings is to pack their
> installation program (for example Setup.exe) into a Z
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_(file_format)>ip-Archive and distribute
> it that way, though this can confuse non-expert users.  *
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:24 AM Christian Lenz 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I’m fine with adding this with a comment that those installer are not
> > official.
> >
> > One Issue here is, when I wanted to start the installer, Windows says
> > again this message: https://ibb.co/2Nr8Q43. This happened also for
> > NetBeans > 9. Until NetBeans 9, I didn’t have this Problem. So smth
> changed
> > in the behaviour of the NetBeans executables/binaries that Windows will
> > show this message. I already gave this info in another thread. This will
> > only happen, when I download NetBeans, fresh and new. But when I delete
> the
> > whole folder and the whole dependent directories (userdir, cache), it
> will
> > show the message again.
> >
> > Should I create a new thread?
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > Von: Geertjan Wielenga
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 5. April 2019 09:54
> > An: dev
> > Betreff: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Reema has put the installers created from the installer sources in her
> pull
> > request on Apache NetBeans GitHub in her repo:
> >
> >
> >
> https://github.com/rtaneja1/incubator-netbeans/tree/installer-bin-11vc4/nbbuild/installer/binaries
> >
> > She also has a process whereby the installers can be generated as part of
> > the build.
> >
> > However, since we have not checked in the sources of the installer into
> > Apache NetBeans GitHub and we have not included these convenience
> binaries
> > as part of the vote threads, the installers above can not be seen as
> > official Apache NetBeans installers -- though that should be the aim for
> > the next releases.
> >
> > However, as discussed in other threads some time ago, there's nothing
> wrong
> > with explicitly linking to the above on the page below so long as we
> clear
> > state that these are not official Apache NetBeans installers, though that
> > they should be seen as experimental installers for the next release:
> >
> > https://netbeans.apache.org/download/nb110/nb110.html
> >
> > Do we agree with this? Interested in responses and if everything is
> > favorable and no objections, will add the info as described above to the
> > page above in 24 hours.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gj
> >
> >
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0

2019-04-05 Thread Pete Whelpton

No worries :)   My understanding (I'm 100% sure that this my understanding
is correct) is that digital signing weights the algorithm more in favour of
not displaying a warning, but the early adopters (first few people to
download) may still get the warning until a sufficient level of "trust" has
been built up.

All the best,

P

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 10:01 AM Christian Lenz 
wrote:

> So signing is missing here, if I understand it correctly. Thx for the link
> Pete.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Von: Pete Whelpton
> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. April 2019 10:29
> An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0
>
> The smartscreen warning is mentioned in the Smartscreen wikipedia page,
> under criticism:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SmartScreen
>
> *SmartScreen Filter creates a problem for small software vendors when they
> distribute an updated version of installation or binary files over the
> internet. Whenever an updated version is released, SmartScreen responds by
> stating that the file is not commonly downloaded and can therefore install
> harmful files on your system. This can be fixed by the author digitally
> signing the distributed software. Reputation is then based not only on a
> file's hash but on the signing certificate as well. A common distribution
> method for authors to bypass SmartScreen warnings is to pack their
> installation program (for example Setup.exe) into a Z
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_(file_format)>ip-Archive and distribute
> it that way, though this can confuse non-expert users.  *
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:24 AM Christian Lenz 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I’m fine with adding this with a comment that those installer are not
> > official.
> >
> > One Issue here is, when I wanted to start the installer, Windows says
> > again this message: https://ibb.co/2Nr8Q43. This happened also for
> > NetBeans > 9. Until NetBeans 9, I didn’t have this Problem. So smth
> changed
> > in the behaviour of the NetBeans executables/binaries that Windows will
> > show this message. I already gave this info in another thread. This will
> > only happen, when I download NetBeans, fresh and new. But when I delete
> the
> > whole folder and the whole dependent directories (userdir, cache), it
> will
> > show the message again.
> >
> > Should I create a new thread?
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > Von: Geertjan Wielenga
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 5. April 2019 09:54
> > An: dev
> > Betreff: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Reema has put the installers created from the installer sources in her
> pull
> > request on Apache NetBeans GitHub in her repo:
> >
> >
> >
> https://github.com/rtaneja1/incubator-netbeans/tree/installer-bin-11vc4/nbbuild/installer/binaries
> >
> > She also has a process whereby the installers can be generated as part of
> > the build.
> >
> > However, since we have not checked in the sources of the installer into
> > Apache NetBeans GitHub and we have not included these convenience
> binaries
> > as part of the vote threads, the installers above can not be seen as
> > official Apache NetBeans installers -- though that should be the aim for
> > the next releases.
> >
> > However, as discussed in other threads some time ago, there's nothing
> wrong
> > with explicitly linking to the above on the page below so long as we
> clear
> > state that these are not official Apache NetBeans installers, though that
> > they should be seen as experimental installers for the next release:
> >
> > https://netbeans.apache.org/download/nb110/nb110.html
> >
> > Do we agree with this? Interested in responses and if everything is
> > favorable and no objections, will add the info as described above to the
> > page above in 24 hours.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gj
> >
> >
>
>

AW: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0

2019-04-05 Thread Christian Lenz

So signing is missing here, if I understand it correctly. Thx for the link Pete.

Cheers

Chris

Von: Pete Whelpton
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. April 2019 10:29
An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0

The smartscreen warning is mentioned in the Smartscreen wikipedia page,
under criticism:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SmartScreen

*SmartScreen Filter creates a problem for small software vendors when they
distribute an updated version of installation or binary files over the
internet. Whenever an updated version is released, SmartScreen responds by
stating that the file is not commonly downloaded and can therefore install
harmful files on your system. This can be fixed by the author digitally
signing the distributed software. Reputation is then based not only on a
file's hash but on the signing certificate as well. A common distribution
method for authors to bypass SmartScreen warnings is to pack their
installation program (for example Setup.exe) into a Z
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_(file_format)>ip-Archive and distribute
it that way, though this can confuse non-expert users.  *

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:24 AM Christian Lenz 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I’m fine with adding this with a comment that those installer are not
> official.
>
> One Issue here is, when I wanted to start the installer, Windows says
> again this message: https://ibb.co/2Nr8Q43. This happened also for
> NetBeans > 9. Until NetBeans 9, I didn’t have this Problem. So smth changed
> in the behaviour of the NetBeans executables/binaries that Windows will
> show this message. I already gave this info in another thread. This will
> only happen, when I download NetBeans, fresh and new. But when I delete the
> whole folder and the whole dependent directories (userdir, cache), it will
> show the message again.
>
> Should I create a new thread?
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Von: Geertjan Wielenga
> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. April 2019 09:54
> An: dev
> Betreff: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0
>
> Hi all,
>
> Reema has put the installers created from the installer sources in her pull
> request on Apache NetBeans GitHub in her repo:
>
>
> https://github.com/rtaneja1/incubator-netbeans/tree/installer-bin-11vc4/nbbuild/installer/binaries
>
> She also has a process whereby the installers can be generated as part of
> the build.
>
> However, since we have not checked in the sources of the installer into
> Apache NetBeans GitHub and we have not included these convenience binaries
> as part of the vote threads, the installers above can not be seen as
> official Apache NetBeans installers -- though that should be the aim for
> the next releases.
>
> However, as discussed in other threads some time ago, there's nothing wrong
> with explicitly linking to the above on the page below so long as we clear
> state that these are not official Apache NetBeans installers, though that
> they should be seen as experimental installers for the next release:
>
> https://netbeans.apache.org/download/nb110/nb110.html
>
> Do we agree with this? Interested in responses and if everything is
> favorable and no objections, will add the info as described above to the
> page above in 24 hours.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gj
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0

2019-04-05 Thread Pete Whelpton

The smartscreen warning is mentioned in the Smartscreen wikipedia page,
under criticism:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SmartScreen

*SmartScreen Filter creates a problem for small software vendors when they
distribute an updated version of installation or binary files over the
internet. Whenever an updated version is released, SmartScreen responds by
stating that the file is not commonly downloaded and can therefore install
harmful files on your system. This can be fixed by the author digitally
signing the distributed software. Reputation is then based not only on a
file's hash but on the signing certificate as well. A common distribution
method for authors to bypass SmartScreen warnings is to pack their
installation program (for example Setup.exe) into a Z
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_(file_format)>ip-Archive and distribute
it that way, though this can confuse non-expert users.  *



On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 9:24 AM Christian Lenz 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I’m fine with adding this with a comment that those installer are not
> official.
>
> One Issue here is, when I wanted to start the installer, Windows says
> again this message: https://ibb.co/2Nr8Q43. This happened also for
> NetBeans > 9. Until NetBeans 9, I didn’t have this Problem. So smth changed
> in the behaviour of the NetBeans executables/binaries that Windows will
> show this message. I already gave this info in another thread. This will
> only happen, when I download NetBeans, fresh and new. But when I delete the
> whole folder and the whole dependent directories (userdir, cache), it will
> show the message again.
>
> Should I create a new thread?
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Von: Geertjan Wielenga
> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. April 2019 09:54
> An: dev
> Betreff: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0
>
> Hi all,
>
> Reema has put the installers created from the installer sources in her pull
> request on Apache NetBeans GitHub in her repo:
>
>
> https://github.com/rtaneja1/incubator-netbeans/tree/installer-bin-11vc4/nbbuild/installer/binaries
>
> She also has a process whereby the installers can be generated as part of
> the build.
>
> However, since we have not checked in the sources of the installer into
> Apache NetBeans GitHub and we have not included these convenience binaries
> as part of the vote threads, the installers above can not be seen as
> official Apache NetBeans installers -- though that should be the aim for
> the next releases.
>
> However, as discussed in other threads some time ago, there's nothing wrong
> with explicitly linking to the above on the page below so long as we clear
> state that these are not official Apache NetBeans installers, though that
> they should be seen as experimental installers for the next release:
>
> https://netbeans.apache.org/download/nb110/nb110.html
>
> Do we agree with this? Interested in responses and if everything is
> favorable and no objections, will add the info as described above to the
> page above in 24 hours.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gj
>
>

AW: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0

2019-04-05 Thread Christian Lenz

Hi,

I’m fine with adding this with a comment that those installer are not official.

One Issue here is, when I wanted to start the installer, Windows says again
this message: https://ibb.co/2Nr8Q43. This happened also for NetBeans > 9.
Until NetBeans 9, I didn’t have this Problem. So smth changed in the behaviour
of the NetBeans executables/binaries that Windows will show this message. I
already gave this info in another thread. This will only happen, when I
download NetBeans, fresh and new. But when I delete the whole folder and the
whole dependent directories (userdir, cache), it will show the message again.

Should I create a new thread?

Cheers

Chris

Von: Geertjan Wielenga
Gesendet: Freitag, 5. April 2019 09:54
An: dev
Betreff: [DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0

Hi all,

Reema has put the installers created from the installer sources in her pull
request on Apache NetBeans GitHub in her repo:

https://github.com/rtaneja1/incubator-netbeans/tree/installer-bin-11vc4/nbbuild/installer/binaries

She also has a process whereby the installers can be generated as part of
the build.

However, since we have not checked in the sources of the installer into
Apache NetBeans GitHub and we have not included these convenience binaries
as part of the vote threads, the installers above can not be seen as
official Apache NetBeans installers -- though that should be the aim for
the next releases.

However, as discussed in other threads some time ago, there's nothing wrong
with explicitly linking to the above on the page below so long as we clear
state that these are not official Apache NetBeans installers, though that
they should be seen as experimental installers for the next release:

https://netbeans.apache.org/download/nb110/nb110.html

Do we agree with this? Interested in responses and if everything is
favorable and no objections, will add the info as described above to the
page above in 24 hours.

Thanks,

[DISCUSS] Experimental installers for 11.0

2019-04-05 Thread Geertjan Wielenga

Hi all,

Reema has put the installers created from the installer sources in her pull
request on Apache NetBeans GitHub in her repo:

https://github.com/rtaneja1/incubator-netbeans/tree/installer-bin-11vc4/nbbuild/installer/binaries

She also has a process whereby the installers can be generated as part of
the build.

However, since we have not checked in the sources of the installer into
Apache NetBeans GitHub and we have not included these convenience binaries
as part of the vote threads, the installers above can not be seen as
official Apache NetBeans installers -- though that should be the aim for
the next releases.

However, as discussed in other threads some time ago, there's nothing wrong
with explicitly linking to the above on the page below so long as we clear
state that these are not official Apache NetBeans installers, though that
they should be seen as experimental installers for the next release:

https://netbeans.apache.org/download/nb110/nb110.html

Do we agree with this? Interested in responses and if everything is
favorable and no objections, will add the info as described above to the
page above in 24 hours.

Thanks,

Gj

Re: Re: Installers for Apache NetBeans 11

2019-03-20 Thread Eric Bresie

Came in late in the discussion so not sure what is presently in use for 
Netbeans but figured I’d mention.

Looking at the Tomcat BUILDING.txt, the ant build script (see release target 
for dependencies) it appears to use an open source installer (see
https://nsis.sourceforge.io/Main_Page ) as part of its build process.

On none Windows environments it also uses Wine to build with.

Eric Bresie
ebre...@gmail.com
> On March 19, 2019 at 7:25:45 AM CDT, Geertjan Wielenga 
>  wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> https://archive.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-9/v9.0.0.M1/bin/
>
> Tomcat releases installers for Windows, somehow, let's follow however they
> do that in terms of how to release it.
>
> Gj
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:33 PM Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, how do we get this resolved, ask our mentors or open a legal issue or
> > what do you suggest?
> >
> > Gj
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 12:31, Neil C Smith  wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 11:18, Geertjan Wielenga
> > >  wrote:
> > > > Surely
> > > > the sources of that installer themselves are not required to be part of
> > > the
> > > > release too?
> > >
> > > That (or a separately voted on source release / third-party
> > > dependency) would exactly be my expectation, yes. IMO it should
> > > always be possible for anyone to take the source release and build the
> > > installers entirely from source without relying on anything that
> > > hasn't been released. That's my interpretation from both the Apache
> > > guidelines and how other FLOSS projects work, but the easiest thing
> > > would surely be just to get clarification one way or another whether
> > > this would be breaking Apache policy so merging can be considered if
> > > required?
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > >
> > > Neil
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >

Re: Installers for Apache NetBeans 11

2019-03-19 Thread Timon Veenstra

>
>
> Do the sources of the installers matter, at all? What they are is a
> convenience binary, which is outside the scope of what Apache releases in
> the same way as a ZIP file.
>
>
For RCP based applications it sure does.

Re: Installers for Apache NetBeans 11

2019-03-19 Thread Geertjan Wielenga

Hey all,

https://archive.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-9/v9.0.0.M1/bin/

Tomcat releases installers for Windows, somehow, let's follow however they
do that in terms of how to release it.

Gj

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:33 PM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Yes, how do we get this resolved, ask our mentors or open a legal issue or
> what do you suggest?
>
> Gj
>
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 12:31, Neil C Smith  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 11:18, Geertjan Wielenga
>>  wrote:
>> >Surely
>> > the sources of that installer themselves are not required to be part of
>> the
>> > release too?
>>
>> That (or a separately voted on source release / third-party
>> dependency) would exactly be my expectation, yes.  IMO it should
>> always be possible for anyone to take the source release and build the
>> installers entirely from source without relying on anything that
>> hasn't been released.  That's my interpretation from both the Apache
>> guidelines and how other FLOSS projects work, but the easiest thing
>> would surely be just to get clarification one way or another whether
>> this would be breaking Apache policy so merging can be considered if
>> required?
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Neil
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>>
>> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: Installers for Apache NetBeans 11

2019-03-19 Thread Geertjan Wielenga

Yes, how do we get this resolved, ask our mentors or open a legal issue or
what do you suggest?

Gj

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 12:31, Neil C Smith  wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 11:18, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> >Surely
> > the sources of that installer themselves are not required to be part of
> the
> > release too?
>
> That (or a separately voted on source release / third-party
> dependency) would exactly be my expectation, yes.  IMO it should
> always be possible for anyone to take the source release and build the
> installers entirely from source without relying on anything that
> hasn't been released.  That's my interpretation from both the Apache
> guidelines and how other FLOSS projects work, but the easiest thing
> would surely be just to get clarification one way or another whether
> this would be breaking Apache policy so merging can be considered if
> required?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Neil
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>
>
>
>

Re: Installers for Apache NetBeans 11

2019-03-19 Thread Neil C Smith

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 11:18, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:
>Surely
> the sources of that installer themselves are not required to be part of the
> release too?

That (or a separately voted on source release / third-party
dependency) would exactly be my expectation, yes.  IMO it should
always be possible for anyone to take the source release and build the
installers entirely from source without relying on anything that
hasn't been released.  That's my interpretation from both the Apache
guidelines and how other FLOSS projects work, but the easiest thing
would surely be just to get clarification one way or another whether
this would be breaking Apache policy so merging can be considered if
required?

Best wishes,

Neil

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

For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists

Re: Installers for Apache NetBeans 11

2019-03-19 Thread Geertjan Wielenga

The key problem here is that there's nothing comparable in any other Apache
projects -- we can't refer to anything else and need to decide amongst
ourselves what to do here. The installer exists for no other purpose than
to install the binary of the sources that define the Apache release. Surely
the sources of that installer themselves are not required to be part of the
release too?

Gj

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:14 PM Neil C Smith  wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 10:28, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> > Do the sources of the installers matter, at all? What they are is a
> > convenience binary, which is outside the scope of what Apache releases in
> > the same way as a ZIP file.
>
> Not trying to be awkward, but really don't see that parallel.  An
> installer, particularly on Windows, is a binary executable not an
> archive surely?!  I don't think it squares with "MUST only add
> binary/bytecode files that are the result of compiling that version of
> the source code release and its dependencies."  I'd be interested in
> other opinions, particularly from mentors, on that.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Neil
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>
>
>
>

Re: Installers for Apache NetBeans 11

2019-03-19 Thread Neil C Smith

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 10:28, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:
> Do the sources of the installers matter, at all? What they are is a
> convenience binary, which is outside the scope of what Apache releases in
> the same way as a ZIP file.

Not trying to be awkward, but really don't see that parallel.  An
installer, particularly on Windows, is a binary executable not an
archive surely?!  I don't think it squares with "MUST only add
binary/bytecode files that are the result of compiling that version of
the source code release and its dependencies."  I'd be interested in
other opinions, particularly from mentors, on that.

Best wishes,

Neil

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

For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists

Re: Installers for Apache NetBeans 11

2019-03-19 Thread Geertjan Wielenga

Do the sources of the installers matter, at all? What they are is a
convenience binary, which is outside the scope of what Apache releases in
the same way as a ZIP file.

Gj

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 9:57 AM Neil C Smith  wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 08:38, Timon Veenstra  wrote:
> > I would say use the code to generate binaries from the voted release
> > sources.
> > Merge the PR after the release so the source code of the installer
> > generation is included in the next release.
>
> -1
>
> I don't personally see how that meets the requirements outlined at
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#compiled-packages
>
> I think if we're going to make "official" installers, this needs to be
> cherry picked and included in the voted sources.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Neil
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>
>
>
>

Re: Installers for Apache NetBeans 11

2019-03-19 Thread Neil C Smith

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 08:38, Timon Veenstra  wrote:
> I would say use the code to generate binaries from the voted release
> sources.
> Merge the PR after the release so the source code of the installer
> generation is included in the next release.

-1

I don't personally see how that meets the requirements outlined at
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#compiled-packages

I think if we're going to make "official" installers, this needs to be
cherry picked and included in the voted sources.

Best wishes,

Neil

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

For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists

Re: Installers for Apache NetBeans 11

2019-03-19 Thread Geertjan Wielenga

+1

Gj

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 9:38 AM Timon Veenstra  wrote:

> >
> > 1. Is this too late for inclusion in our official release? They haven't
> > been tried out as part of the NetCAT process, so should we wait to
> include
> > these not in the upcoming release, but in the release afterwards?
> >
>
> As the PR has not been merged, this piece of code hasn't been voted on yet.
> I don't see why it would stop us from using the code to publish the code
> that has been approved in binary form.
>
>
> >
> > 2. Voting on releases is on source code only -- this would be a binary
> > release like a ZIP file, would it even need to be voted on? And how would
> > that vote be done?
> >
>
> I would say use the code to generate binaries from the voted release
> sources.
> Merge the PR after the release so the source code of the installer
> generation is included in the next release.
>

Re: Installers for Apache NetBeans 11

2019-03-19 Thread Timon Veenstra

>
> 1. Is this too late for inclusion in our official release? They haven't
> been tried out as part of the NetCAT process, so should we wait to include
> these not in the upcoming release, but in the release afterwards?
>

As the PR has not been merged, this piece of code hasn't been voted on yet.
I don't see why it would stop us from using the code to publish the code
that has been approved in binary form.


>
> 2. Voting on releases is on source code only -- this would be a binary
> release like a ZIP file, would it even need to be voted on? And how would
> that vote be done?
>

I would say use the code to generate binaries from the voted release
sources.
Merge the PR after the release so the source code of the installer
generation is included in the next release.

Re: Installers for Apache NetBeans 11

2019-03-12 Thread Neil C Smith

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 12:36, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:
> 2. Voting on releases is on source code only -- this would be a binary
> release like a ZIP file, would it even need to be voted on? And how would
> that vote be done?

As you say, voting is on source only.  Are all the sources required to
do this in the NB11 branch for voting on?  And could anyone with the
source bundle (and right OS) replicate the process?

> 4. Mac OSX -- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17961.

Could consider the app bundle approach available in the platform as an
OSX option for this release too?

Best wishes,

Neil

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

For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists

Re: Installers for Apache NetBeans 11

2019-03-12 Thread Laszlo Kishalmi




On 3/12/19 5:35 AM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:

Hi all,

Reema and others have put together installers for Windows and Linux:

https://builds.apache.org/job/netbeans-installer-test/

The questions are:

1. Is this too late for inclusion in our official release? They haven't
been tried out as part of the NetCAT process, so should we wait to include
these not in the upcoming release, but in the release afterwards?


Well, I see this one is coming from a forked branch, that branch shall 
be merged into master then into release110.


Depending on the code in the PR, I think it might be possible to add 
these installers into the current release.




2. Voting on releases is on source code only -- this would be a binary
release like a ZIP file, would it even need to be voted on? And how would
that vote be done?
We vote on the code only, so if we reach the point when the installer 
actually build-able from the code, I do not see any reason why we can't 
add them to our list of convenience binaries.


3. They need to be signed -- Laszlo, do you know how to do this (as
volunteer release manager)?
I guess this is something additional to our PGP signature. I do not know 
about that, but if we have some docs on it (maybe on our Wiki), I could 
follow that one.


4. Mac OSX -- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17961.

Thanks,

Gj



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

For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists

Installers for Apache NetBeans 11

2019-03-12 Thread Geertjan Wielenga

Hi all,

Reema and others have put together installers for Windows and Linux:

https://builds.apache.org/job/netbeans-installer-test/

The questions are:

1. Is this too late for inclusion in our official release? They haven't
been tried out as part of the NetCAT process, so should we wait to include
these not in the upcoming release, but in the release afterwards?

2. Voting on releases is on source code only -- this would be a binary
release like a ZIP file, would it even need to be voted on? And how would
that vote be done?

3. They need to be signed -- Laszlo, do you know how to do this (as
volunteer release manager)?

4. Mac OSX -- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17961.

Thanks,

Gj

Re: Re: State of the Apache NetBeans installers

2019-02-05 Thread Eric Bresie

Regarding JRE/JDK...

I thought one of the driving things about “modules” in new java release (I 
believe Java 11ish) was to make it so that a modularize jre could be created 
with only elements needed being included and the. That “custom” JRE would be 
embedded with the product. So would linking based on needs be viable.

Or is inclusion of that counter to accepted practices here?

Or am I going in a completely different tangent topic here?

Eric Bresie
ebre...@gmail.com
> On February 5, 2019 at 6:02:43 AM CST, Neil C Smith  
> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 11:46, Emilian Bold  wrote:
> > Did you manage to digitally sign the EXE on Linux?
>
> No, that's one thing I haven't looked at yet. As far as I know it's
> feasible though. Did a fair bit of reading around Electron packaging
> when making a choice of what to go with - various discussion of
> options for signing .exe on Linux/Mac there.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Neil
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>
>
>

Re: State of the Apache NetBeans installers

2019-02-05 Thread Neil C Smith

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 11:46, Emilian Bold  wrote:
> Did you manage to digitally sign the EXE on Linux?

No, that's one thing I haven't looked at yet.  As far as I know it's
feasible though.  Did a fair bit of reading around Electron packaging
when making a choice of what to go with - various discussion of
options for signing .exe on Linux/Mac there.

Best wishes,

Neil

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

For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists

Re: State of the Apache NetBeans installers

2019-02-05 Thread Emilian Bold

Did you manage to digitally sign the EXE on Linux?

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 13:13, Neil C Smith  wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 10:17, Mark Phipps  wrote:
> > It is NBI for several reasons:
>
> Thanks.  Some thoughts inline.
>
> > 1. afaik it's the way that NetBeans IDE up to 8.2 was installed - why
> > can't it be used for 10.0, 11.0 ?
>
> It relies on the user already having a JRE/JDK installed, or bundling
> one inside.  As an Apache project, as things currently stand, we can't
> bundle the JDK.  We could potentially provide a more user-friendly
> installer that provides an optional step to download a JRE/JDK to run
> against, but at least that part of the installer can't be in Java for
> obvious reasons.
>
> > 2. part of the NB code base
>
> Personally I think there are pros and cons to that.  I'm shipping an
> application that is still NB8.2 based at the moment, but already moved
> away from NBI for other reasons.  There are currently better featured
> alternatives around, so another question is whether improving
> NetBean's own solution or improving integration with third-party
> solutions is a better use of our resources?
>
> > 3. baked into Ant - right click on an Ant-based NB Platform project and
> > choose "Generate installers"
> > 4. baked into the nbm-maven plugin. I have invested a huge amount of
> > time and effort working out how to tune the generation of installers
> > from our maven/ant build system.
> > 5. therefore all runs on linux, don't need Windows to generate a Windows
> > (or Mac) installer.
>
> Your requirements are very similar to my own there.  It's certainly
> feasible to use InnoSetup on Linux and integrate into an automated
> build pipeline.  It does require executing via the Wine libraries, but
> it's fairly easy to set up in Ant, can be run as part of Travis, etc.
>
> This is not specifically an argument in favour of InnoSetup - there
> are other options that work cross-platform too, and may remove Wine
> requirements, but it's the one that met my own RCP needs the best.
>
> > I don't want to use yet another technology like Innosetup (good as it
> > may be), because I don't run any of my build pipeline on Windows. I
> > don't want to learn Pascal scripting either.
>
> Neither do I, and haven't needed to resort to Pascal scripting as yet!
> :-)  I think we could even manage the JDK download and integration
> without scripting it, but need to read up more on that.  Certainly a
> standard RCP with straight bundling can be done without any Pascal.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Neil
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>
>
>
> --
--emi

Re: State of the Apache NetBeans installers

2019-02-05 Thread Neil C Smith

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 10:17, Mark Phipps  wrote:
> It is NBI for several reasons:

Thanks.  Some thoughts inline.

> 1. afaik it's the way that NetBeans IDE up to 8.2 was installed - why
> can't it be used for 10.0, 11.0 ?

It relies on the user already having a JRE/JDK installed, or bundling
one inside.  As an Apache project, as things currently stand, we can't
bundle the JDK.  We could potentially provide a more user-friendly
installer that provides an optional step to download a JRE/JDK to run
against, but at least that part of the installer can't be in Java for
obvious reasons.

> 2. part of the NB code base

Personally I think there are pros and cons to that.  I'm shipping an
application that is still NB8.2 based at the moment, but already moved
away from NBI for other reasons.  There are currently better featured
alternatives around, so another question is whether improving
NetBean's own solution or improving integration with third-party
solutions is a better use of our resources?

> 3. baked into Ant - right click on an Ant-based NB Platform project and
> choose "Generate installers"
> 4. baked into the nbm-maven plugin. I have invested a huge amount of
> time and effort working out how to tune the generation of installers
> from our maven/ant build system.
> 5. therefore all runs on linux, don't need Windows to generate a Windows
> (or Mac) installer.

Your requirements are very similar to my own there.  It's certainly
feasible to use InnoSetup on Linux and integrate into an automated
build pipeline.  It does require executing via the Wine libraries, but
it's fairly easy to set up in Ant, can be run as part of Travis, etc.

This is not specifically an argument in favour of InnoSetup - there
are other options that work cross-platform too, and may remove Wine
requirements, but it's the one that met my own RCP needs the best.

> I don't want to use yet another technology like Innosetup (good as it
> may be), because I don't run any of my build pipeline on Windows. I
> don't want to learn Pascal scripting either.

Neither do I, and haven't needed to resort to Pascal scripting as yet!
:-)  I think we could even manage the JDK download and integration
without scripting it, but need to read up more on that.  Certainly a
standard RCP with straight bundling can be done without any Pascal.

Best wishes,

Neil

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

For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists

Re: State of the Apache NetBeans installers

2019-02-05 Thread Emilian Bold

> I believe that NBI has legs, at least as a way for NB Platform
applications to fill the gap left by the demise of Java Web Start. As I
have said before, I don't understand well how the NBI system works (yet
- I am trying), but I can't see any good reason why it should be abandoned.

I suspect very few people know how NBI works, it was always a bit magic.

If we can’t support it it might be simpler in time to just abandon it.

I also have a Platform project where the customer went the InnoSetup route.

I guess it’s a pain not to have everything cross-platform but you still
have to replace the launcher icon somehow and you have to sign the
installer (both of which I’ve always done on windows although in theory
doable anywhere)

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 12:17, Mark Phipps  wrote:

> Hi Neil,
>
> It is NBI for several reasons:
>
> 1. afaik it's the way that NetBeans IDE up to 8.2 was installed - why
> can't it be used for 10.0, 11.0 ?
> 2. part of the NB code base
> 3. baked into Ant - right click on an Ant-based NB Platform project and
> choose "Generate installers"
> 4. baked into the nbm-maven plugin. I have invested a huge amount of
> time and effort working out how to tune the generation of installers
> from our maven/ant build system.
> 5. therefore all runs on linux, don't need Windows to generate a Windows
> (or Mac) installer.
>
> I don't want to use yet another technology like Innosetup (good as it
> may be), because I don't run any of my build pipeline on Windows. I
> don't want to learn Pascal scripting either.
>
> I believe that NBI has legs, at least as a way for NB Platform
> applications to fill the gap left by the demise of Java Web Start. As I
> have said before, I don't understand well how the NBI system works (yet
> - I am trying), but I can't see any good reason why it should be abandoned.
>
> Regards
> Mark
>
> On 05/02/2019 08:38, Neil C Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, 16:15 Mark Phipps  >
> >> Whatever solutions you decide are best for installing NetBeans IDE
> >> itself, application providers need a way to bundle a JRE within the
> >> installer. I presume that everyone is still minded to use the NBI
> >> framework to accomplish this?
> >>
> > Personally, not in the slightest! I made a move on Linux to .deb (soon to
> > be AppImage or Snap), then on macOS to app bundle, and most recently
> > InnoSetup on Windows about a year ago. Bundling is a lot easier when the
> > installation process itself doesn't require the JRE. And I've barely
> > scratched the surface of InnoSetup's features but already got numerous
> > things that were more difficult to achieve via NBI.
> >
> > A question back would actually be, for you why NBI?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Neil
> >
>
> www.sucdenfinancial.com
>
> Sucden Financial Limited, Plantation Place South, 60 Gre
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=imited,+Plantation+Place+South,+60+Gre=gmail=g>at
> Tower Street, London EC3R 5AZ
> Telephone +44 203 207 5000
>
> Registered in England no. 1095841
> VAT registration no. GB 446 9061 33
>
> Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and
> entered in the FCA register under no. 114239
>
> This email, including any files transmitted with it, is confidential and
> may be privileged. It may be read, copied and used only by the intended
> recipient.
> If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify
> postmas...@sucfin.com immediately and delete it from your computer system.
>
> We believe, but do not warrant, that this email and its attachments are
> virus-free, but you should check.
>
> Sucden Financial Limited may monitor traffic data of both business and
> personal emails. By replying to this email, you consent to Sucden Financial
> 's monitoring
> the content of any emails you send to or receive from Sucden Financial .
> Sucden Financial is not liable for any opinions expressed by the sender
> where this is a
> non-business email.
>
> The contents of this e-mail do not constitute advice and should not be
> regarded as a recommendation to buy, sell or otherwise deal with any
> particular investment.
> Where any trade ideas are made by an employee of Sucden Financial in an
> electronic communication, these are made incidentally to your dealing
> relationship with
> us and are provided solely to enable you to make your own investment
> decisions and do not amount to advice. Please note that the employee may
> have had many, varied
> trade ideas over the past 12 months, including contrary ideas. Any trade
> ideas are solely based on the employee’s market knowledge and experience
> and may not be
> t

Re: State of the Apache NetBeans installers

2019-02-05 Thread Neil C Smith

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 22:57, Wade Chandler  wrote:
> Too, it seems we could provide an installer that downloads the JDK for the
> end user, but that also can create and output a bundled installer for that
> end user; they would be building and distributing it. They could then place
> that on any server they wish, that isn't Apache's, and share that; even use
> it to create their Enterprise installers.

That's a really interesting idea!  Obviously other people can already
build bundled installers, but as an Apache project we can't do so
directly.  But we should be OK with an installer that can do this as
an optional step on the user side.  Now if that (or related code)
could also create bundles itself, that sounds really useful.  If it
could keep intact a reproducible and/or Apache-signed NetBeans binary
in the process, with some verification, maybe that is at least one
good criteria for allowing bundles to carry the Apache NetBeans + ...
name?

Best wishes,

Neil

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

For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists

Re: State of the Apache NetBeans installers

2019-02-05 Thread Mark Phipps

Hi Neil,

It is NBI for several reasons:

1. afaik it's the way that NetBeans IDE up to 8.2 was installed - why
can't it be used for 10.0, 11.0 ?

2. part of the NB code base
3. baked into Ant - right click on an Ant-based NB Platform project and
choose "Generate installers"
4. baked into the nbm-maven plugin. I have invested a huge amount of
time and effort working out how to tune the generation of installers
from our maven/ant build system.
5. therefore all runs on linux, don't need Windows to generate a Windows
(or Mac) installer.

I don't want to use yet another technology like Innosetup (good as it
may be), because I don't run any of my build pipeline on Windows. I
don't want to learn Pascal scripting either.

I believe that NBI has legs, at least as a way for NB Platform
applications to fill the gap left by the demise of Java Web Start. As I
have said before, I don't understand well how the NBI system works (yet
- I am trying), but I can't see any good reason why it should be abandoned.

Regards
Mark

On 05/02/2019 08:38, Neil C Smith wrote:

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, 16:15 Mark Phipps
Whatever solutions you decide are best for installing NetBeans IDE
itself, application providers need a way to bundle a JRE within the
installer. I presume that everyone is still minded to use the NBI
framework to accomplish this?

Personally, not in the slightest! I made a move on Linux to .deb (soon to
be AppImage or Snap), then on macOS to app bundle, and most recently
InnoSetup on Windows about a year ago. Bundling is a lot easier when the
installation process itself doesn't require the JRE. And I've barely
scratched the surface of InnoSetup's features but already got numerous
things that were more difficult to achieve via NBI.

A question back would actually be, for you why NBI?

Best wishes,

Neil

www.sucdenfinancial.com

Sucden Financial Limited, Plantation Place South, 60 Great Tower Street, London
EC3R 5AZ
Telephone +44 203 207 5000

Registered in England no. 1095841
VAT registration no. GB 446 9061 33

Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and entered
in the FCA register under no. 114239

This email, including any files transmitted with it, is confidential and may be privileged. It may be read, copied and used only by the intended recipient.
If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please notify postmas...@sucfin.com immediately and delete it from your computer system.

We believe, but do not warrant, that this email and its attachments are
virus-free, but you should check.

Sucden Financial Limited may monitor traffic data of both business and personal emails. By replying to this email, you consent to Sucden Financial 's monitoring
the content of any emails you send to or receive from Sucden Financial . Sucden Financial is not liable for any opinions expressed by the sender where this is a
non-business email.

The contents of this e-mail do not constitute advice and should not be regarded as a recommendation to buy, sell or otherwise deal with any particular investment.
Where any trade ideas are made by an employee of Sucden Financial in an electronic communication, these are made incidentally to your dealing relationship with
us and are provided solely to enable you to make your own investment decisions and do not amount to advice. Please note that the employee may have had many, varied
trade ideas over the past 12 months, including contrary ideas. Any trade ideas are solely based on the employee’s market knowledge and experience and may not be
tailored to your specific circumstances or investment objectives. Please contact the employee who made the trade idea if you would like to see any of his/her trade
ideas made in the previous 12 months for comparative purposes. Please visit our website to view our full risk warnings and disclaimers: www.sucdenfinancial.com.

This message has been scanned for viruses by Mimecast.

Re: State of the Apache NetBeans installers

2019-02-05 Thread Neil C Smith

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, 16:15 Mark Phipps  Whatever solutions you decide are best for installing NetBeans IDE
> itself, application providers need a way to bundle a JRE within the
> installer. I presume that everyone is still minded to use the NBI
> framework to accomplish this?
>

Personally, not in the slightest! I made a move on Linux to .deb (soon to
be AppImage or Snap), then on macOS to app bundle, and most recently
InnoSetup on Windows about a year ago. Bundling is a lot easier when the
installation process itself doesn't require the JRE. And I've barely
scratched the surface of InnoSetup's features but already got numerous
things that were more difficult to achieve via NBI.

A question back would actually be, for you why NBI?

Best wishes,

Neil

>

Re: State of the Apache NetBeans installers

2019-02-04 Thread Mark Phipps

Hello,

My priority (and I am sure that of many others) is to be able to provide
an installer for a NetBeans Platform application on Windows, Mac and
Linux. By destroying Java Web Start, Oracle has decreed that
applications should be delivered with their own bundled JRE.

Whatever solutions you decide are best for installing NetBeans IDE
itself, application providers need a way to bundle a JRE within the
installer. I presume that everyone is still minded to use the NBI
framework to accomplish this?

I refer to this thread, where I think updates still need to be rebuilt
to get NBI working with JDK 11:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a75960078f8bfcd0151ad3efd87ce5d9715ed6dc751deeea71de179a@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

Regards
Mark

On 02/02/2019 15:06, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:

Hi all,

Tried to gather different threads together in the below to get a thorough
overview of where and why we are where we are:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/State+of+the+Apache+NetBeans+Installers

Thanks,

www.sucdenfinancial.com

Sucden Financial Limited, Plantation Place South, 60 Great Tower Street, London
EC3R 5AZ
Telephone +44 203 207 5000

Registered in England no. 1095841
VAT registration no. GB 446 9061 33

Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and entered
in the FCA register under no. 114239

We believe, but do not warrant, that this email and its attachments are
virus-free, but you should check.

This message has been scanned for viruses by Mimecast.

Re: State of the Apache NetBeans installers

2019-02-03 Thread Emilian Bold

What I generally avoid on macOS are .pkg installers. I prefer apps that run
from the start and don't need installing. DMG is perfect for that. A ZIP
would also do I guess although it doesn't feel macOS-native.

In 14 years Macs CPUs have gotten much better and NetBeans has stagnated in
terms of system demands. So I doubt the impact is that much even if the IDE
was executed straight from the DMG.

--emi


On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 2:06 AM Scott Palmer  wrote:

> Use a .zip and the run from DMG problem goes away.
> I don’t think there should be any code to detect if NB is running from a
> DMG. It isn’t worth it when the problem is so easily avoided.
>
> Scott
>
> > On Feb 2, 2019, at 12:25 PM, Emilian Bold 
> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, I saw this comment on
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/State+of+the+Apache+NetBeans+Installers
> >
> > This debate was had once about 14 years ago - and the decision to go with
> >> .pkg installers on Mac OSX was made for this reason: There were a lot of
> >> "NetBeans is unusably slow" reports on OSX.
> >> The reason? A LOT of users never unpacked the .app - they were running
> it
> >> directly from the mounted, compressed .dmg image. It turns out that's
> not
> >> that unusual.
> >> Random access Java classloading does not play nicely AT ALL with the
> >> compression used for .dmg images.
> >> I strongly recommend not repeating that mistake.
> >
> >
> > I believe NetBeans should detect if it's being executed from a DMG and
> warn
> > the user about it. I did have an user with an utterly broken install due
> to
> > AppTranslocation.
> >
> > Still, using a DMG is the way to go imho.
> >
> > --emi
> >
> >
> >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 6:32 PM Emilian Bold 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I can share the CoolBeans installers but they are no big deal, not
> >> sure if they are good enough for NetBeans...
> >>
> >> My macOS DMG uses a variation of the Carl J. Mosca script does
> >> (Carl's script has a bug as it assumes the location never changes; I
> >> would make a PR if I wouldn't have changed so much stuff).
> >>
> >> My Windows installer uses InnoSetup and has again a very basic script,
> >> based on what Stephen Cumminger shared on the mailing list a while
> >> back. It's very basic, but gets the job done of copying the files,
> >> creating shortcuts and providing an uninstaller.
> >>
> >> I believe these are actually enough for end users, but NetBeans always
> >> had a much more fancy installer, with Glassfish and many other things.
> >> Especially for macOS I always wanted a clean drag-and-drop DMG, no
> >> package with a wizard.
> >>
> >> I think it's important that both the DMG and the EXE are digitally
> signed.
> >> Windows particularly has very scary warning messages for unsigned EXEs.
> >>
> >> --emi
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 5:14 PM Geertjan Wielenga
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Tried to gather different threads together in the below to get a
> thorough
> >>> overview of where and why we are where we are:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/State+of+the+Apache+NetBeans+Installers
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Gj
> >>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
>
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>
>
>
>

Re: State of the Apache NetBeans installers

2019-02-02 Thread Emilian Bold

> My understanding is you could create a
bundler that is clear to spell out it is a bundler, and is just installing
"Apache NetBeans + AdoptOpenJDK" as an example as long as it is just a
redistribution of unchanged parts.

I haven't seen this spelled out as such, although it's been mentioned like
this on mailing list and on issues.

Apache's trademark rules are actually quite clear, but in practice things
might be different. Linux distros obviously distribute Apache stuff under
Apache trademark names and they even patch them in various way so it's not
even an Apache release that gets shown there, but a derivative work. Yet,
everything is well.

Perhaps I should just try making a bundle and publish it. See what happens
then.

> We could even then have Oracle and Amazon use that, but
certainly others like Pivotal or even an arrangement with AdoptOpenJDK to
distribute could be made.

I doubt AdoptOpenJDK would get into favouring an IDE. But I get your idea

--emi


On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 11:57 PM Wade Chandler 
wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 15:43 Emilian Bold <
>
> >
> > If Apache gets more lenient / clear on bundling I could also create a
> > 'vanilla NetBeans' package with no bits changed except the additional
> JDK.
> > Although I suspect the general idea is for Oracle or Amazon to do some
> > JDK+NetBeans bundle release and not smaller projects.
> >
>
> What does this mean necessarily? My understanding is you could create a
> bundler that is clear to spell out it is a bundler, and is just installing
> "Apache NetBeans + AdoptOpenJDK" as an example as long as it is just a
> redistribution of unchanged parts.
>
> Too, it seems we could provide an installer that downloads the JDK for the
> end user, but that also can create and output a bundled installer for that
> end user; they would be building and distributing it. They could then place
> that on any server they wish, that isn't Apache's, and share that; even use
> it to create their Enterprise installers. We could even have that allow all
> headless creation to allow it to work in scripted setups such as something
> using Ansible. We could even then have Oracle and Amazon use that, but
> certainly others like Pivotal or even an arrangement with AdoptOpenJDK to
> distribute could be made.
>
> Thanks
>
> Wade
>

Re: State of the Apache NetBeans installers

2019-02-02 Thread Wade Chandler

On Sat, Feb 2, 2019, 15:43 Emilian Bold <

>
> If Apache gets more lenient / clear on bundling I could also create a
> 'vanilla NetBeans' package with no bits changed except the additional JDK.
> Although I suspect the general idea is for Oracle or Amazon to do some
> JDK+NetBeans bundle release and not smaller projects.
>

What does this mean necessarily? My understanding is you could create a
bundler that is clear to spell out it is a bundler, and is just installing
"Apache NetBeans + AdoptOpenJDK" as an example as long as it is just a
redistribution of unchanged parts.

Too, it seems we could provide an installer that downloads the JDK for the
end user, but that also can create and output a bundled installer for that
end user; they would be building and distributing it. They could then place
that on any server they wish, that isn't Apache's, and share that; even use
it to create their Enterprise installers. We could even have that allow all
headless creation to allow it to work in scripted setups such as something
using Ansible. We could even then have Oracle and Amazon use that, but
certainly others like Pivotal or even an arrangement with AdoptOpenJDK to
distribute could be made.

Thanks

Wade

1 2 >

1 - 100 of 124 matches

Mail list logo