Re: TavMob source, binary or both

[Stian Soiland-Reyes]

On 16 January 2018 at 16:52, Ian Dunlop  wrote:
> I’ll check and add the NOTICE & apache licence into that page inside the app 
> if necessary.

Great!

> I think creating the apk then adding it, an apache licence, notice & the 
> dependencies list to a zip seems like a good idea. I assume that we can push 
> this zip to the “binaries” area on dist and the actual source zip to the 
> source “dist” area

I think just do the zip manually for now, possibly cook a tiny shell script?

BTW, here's how I did checksums manually:

stain@biggie:~/src/foo$  f=foo.tar.gz ; for algo in md5 sha1 sha256
sha512 ; do hash=`${algo}sum $f| awk '{print $1}'`; echo $hash
>$f.$algo ; echo $algo: $hash ; done
md5: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
sha1: da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709
sha256: e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855
sha512: 
cf83e1357eefb8bdf1542850d66d8007d620e4050b5715dc83f4a921d36ce9ce47d0d13c5d85f2b0ff8318d2877eec2f63b931bd47417a81a538327af927da3e


> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/taverna
>
> Which I guess means we need to wait until the current release is moved out.


No need to wait, I just published Taverna Server after it passed
Incubator vote, and
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/taverna/source/ is
empty again.

(and anyway we use sub-folders like taverna-mobile-1.0.0-incubating so
there would not be a conflict in dev/)

-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes
http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718

RE: TavMob source, binary or both

[Ian Dunlop]

Hello,

I’ll check and add the NOTICE & apache licence into that page inside the app if 
necessary.
I think creating the apk then adding it, an apache licence, notice & the 
dependencies list to a zip seems like a good idea. I assume that we can push 
this zip to the “binaries” area on dist and the actual source zip to the source 
“dist” area  
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/taverna

Which I guess means we need to wait until the current release is moved out.

Cheers,

Ian
Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Stian Soiland-Reyes
Sent: 15 January 2018 15:57
To: dev@taverna.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: TavMob source, binary or both

I think this sounds like a good approach, Ian!

Generally it is simpler to do just a source release - if we are doing
a binary release we also need to have a complete LICENSE/NOTICE for
our bundled dependencies:
https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary


However you already did the external licenses here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-mobile/blob/master/app/src/main/assets/licences.html


And so we should be able to refer to this in the binary distribution -
that's the file that can be viewed form within the app, right?
(This seem to be missing our own NOTICE and the complete text of
Apache LICENSE, is that added in somehow?)


Given that the work of dependency licenses is done I would vote for
TavMobile as a source+binary release.

It might be easiest to put the apk manually (or with a shell script)
inside a zip next to a LICENSE and NOTICE and a copy of that
licenses.html? Otherwise you have to install and run the app to view
its (shrink-wrap) license..

Signing of the apk with Google Play does not need to be part of the
release process, in particular if that might mean "distributing" the
apk to Google Play prematurely.


If it is too much work, let's do just a source release (as we did with
server/cmd line) avoid more delays. But then we should not put it in
Google Play as an official "Apache Taverna Mobile" release, just
personally add it as "Taverna Mobile".


On 15 January 2018 at 12:00, Ian Dunlop <ianwdun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm going to try a release of TavMob soon. I'm not sure whether this
> should just be of the source code or whether we need to include a binary
> apk file as well. We could include an apk that people can test on their
> phones without needing Android studio etc. What we will need to do after
> release is then to sign it with the appropriate key for release via
> google play.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ian
>
>



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes
http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718

Re: TavMob source, binary or both

[Stian Soiland-Reyes]

I think this sounds like a good approach, Ian!

Generally it is simpler to do just a source release - if we are doing
a binary release we also need to have a complete LICENSE/NOTICE for
our bundled dependencies:
https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary


However you already did the external licenses here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-taverna-mobile/blob/master/app/src/main/assets/licences.html


And so we should be able to refer to this in the binary distribution -
that's the file that can be viewed form within the app, right?
(This seem to be missing our own NOTICE and the complete text of
Apache LICENSE, is that added in somehow?)


Given that the work of dependency licenses is done I would vote for
TavMobile as a source+binary release.

It might be easiest to put the apk manually (or with a shell script)
inside a zip next to a LICENSE and NOTICE and a copy of that
licenses.html? Otherwise you have to install and run the app to view
its (shrink-wrap) license..

Signing of the apk with Google Play does not need to be part of the
release process, in particular if that might mean "distributing" the
apk to Google Play prematurely.


If it is too much work, let's do just a source release (as we did with
server/cmd line) avoid more delays. But then we should not put it in
Google Play as an official "Apache Taverna Mobile" release, just
personally add it as "Taverna Mobile".


On 15 January 2018 at 12:00, Ian Dunlop  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm going to try a release of TavMob soon. I'm not sure whether this
> should just be of the source code or whether we need to include a binary
> apk file as well. We could include an apk that people can test on their
> phones without needing Android studio etc. What we will need to do after
> release is then to sign it with the appropriate key for release via
> google play.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ian
>
>



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes
http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718

TavMob source, binary or both

[Ian Dunlop]

Hello,

I'm going to try a release of TavMob soon. I'm not sure whether this
should just be of the source code or whether we need to include a binary
apk file as well. We could include an apk that people can test on their
phones without needing Android studio etc. What we will need to do after
release is then to sign it with the appropriate key for release via
google play.

Cheers,

Ian




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature