[nant-dev] Re: [Nant-users] ResGenTask problem
I already had this issue fixed on my local system, but I'm testing some other changes before committing the fix ... Gert - Original Message - From: "Dmitriy Bezugliy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 10:50 PM Subject: [Nant-users] ResGenTask problem > Seems to bug introdused in last night build 20031010 with 20031007 all work > fine > [solution] - C:\Core\res\strings.ru-RU.resx > [solution] ResGenTask Input: > C:\Core\res\strings.ru-RU.resx Output: > C:\DOCUME~1\amid\LOCALS~1\Temp\hi771plq\Core.res.strings.ru-RU.resources > > BUILD FAILED > > INTERNAL ERROR > > System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an > instance of an object. >at NAnt.Core.Element.GetAttributeConfigurationNode(String attributeName) > in > C:\DOCUME~1\ADMINI~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\tmp3BF.tmp\src\NAnt.Core\Element.cs:line > 930 >at NAnt.Core.Task.InitializeTaskConfiguration() in > C:\DOCUME~1\ADMINI~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\tmp3BF.tmp\src\NAnt.Core\Task.cs:line 255 >at NAnt.VSNet.Resource.CompileResx() in > C:\DOCUME~1\ADMINI~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\tmp3BF.tmp\src\NAnt.VSNet\Resource.cs:lin > e 260 >at NAnt.VSNet.Resource.Compile(ConfigurationSettings > configurationSettings, Boolean showCommands) in > C:\DOCUME~1\ADMINI~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\tmp3BF.tmp\src\NAnt.VSNet\Resource.cs:lin > e 69 >at NAnt.VSNet.Project.Compile(String configuration, ArrayList > alCSCArguments, String strLogFile, Boolean bVerbose, Boolean bShowCommands) > in > C:\DOCUME~1\ADMINI~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\tmp3BF.tmp\src\NAnt.VSNet\Project.cs:line > 296 >at NAnt.VSNet.Solution.Compile(String configuration, ArrayList > compilerArguments, String logFile, Boolean verbose, Boolean showCommands) in > C:\DOCUME~1\ADMINI~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\tmp3BF.tmp\src\NAnt.VSNet\Solution.cs:lin > e 242 >at NAnt.VSNet.Tasks.SolutionTask.ExecuteTask() in > C:\DOCUME~1\ADMINI~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\tmp3BF.tmp\src\NAnt.VSNet\Tasks\SolutionT > ask.cs:line 293 >at NAnt.Core.Task.Execute() in > C:\DOCUME~1\ADMINI~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\tmp3BF.tmp\src\NAnt.Core\Task.cs:line 150 >at NAnt.Core.Target.Execute() in > C:\DOCUME~1\ADMINI~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\tmp3BF.tmp\src\NAnt.Core\Target.cs:line > 206 >at NAnt.Core.Project.Execute(String targetName) in > C:\DOCUME~1\ADMINI~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\tmp3BF.tmp\src\NAnt.Core\Project.cs:line > 698 >at NAnt.Core.Project.Execute() in > C:\DOCUME~1\ADMINI~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\tmp3BF.tmp\src\NAnt.Core\Project.cs:line > 674 >at NAnt.Core.Project.Run() in > C:\DOCUME~1\ADMINI~1\LOCALS~1\Temp\tmp3BF.tmp\src\NAnt.Core\Project.cs:line > 723 > > > > > --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php ___ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
Re: [nant-dev] Licensing
While replying to your note, I noticed the following on our license page: http://nant.sourceforge.net/license.html --- "NAnt ships with a prebuilt version of NDoc. The NAnt license does not apply to these components located in the bin folder of the distribution. NDoc is licensed under the GNU General Public License." --- (also see http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/ndoc/ndoc/COPYING.txt?rev=1.2&view=auto) We would have to remove NDoc support if we moved to a different license. Unfortunately, this would also include moving to the LGPL. NUnit appears to be safe, though they have a clear anti-commercial (ie: "you can't sell this product for profit") statement in the license. It isn't very clear on whether bundling the product with a commercial one is alright, though I assume that it's within the spirit. :) --- "All of the NUnit source code is Copyright 2000-2002 by Philip Craig. All rights reserved. "This software comes with no warranty whatsoever; Philip Craig does not accept any liability for any damage or loss resulting from the use of this software, no matter how caused. You can use this software free of charge, but you must not sell it beyond charging for reasonable distribution costs. This software includes classes and documentation from JUnit - see the licence for the JUnit licence." --- Scott Hernandez wrote: My largest concern is not that a company can use BSD-code, but rather add core enhancements (ie: modifications/enhancements/bug fixes to the core code) and keep those proprietary. I personally don't mind people keeping peripheral enhancements to themselves (for example, someone wishing to build a proprietary link between their app and NAnt, an NAnt gui, etc.), but it's good to get things like bug fixes and the like back from people using the code. It is great to get bug reports (and esp. patches) back from users. If someone is going to do this I don't think it matters what license the software is under. I don't feel pressed to send code patches to groups based on the license. Sure, I may be bound by the license to do it, but no one is going to force me. Agreed - though if you were to distribute the program publically, it's likely that someone could call you on it. Would changing the license from GPL keep you from contributing code, ideas and being an active member of the development team? Nope - I mentioned before that I would accept whatever license was agreed to by the development group as a whole, even if I don't agree completely with it. :) One other possibility I'd like to throw out these is keeping the core codebase under the GPL (or changing to the LGPL) and offering a "business friendly" binary distribution under a different license. ... This suggestion may not require a license change, but would likely require buy-in from the development group for the binary-licensed distribution. From a marketing point of view it is really good to keep a single license. The more license we use the more confusing the questions become. Going to a BSD/Apache style license is something we can evangelize and > something to point to as a change in the project. This is true. We can get more people involved with NAnt if we have a less restrictive license. As Ian has pointed out, there is a lot of bad press around the viral affects of the GPL. Even if we do have a clause to lessen those restrictions, people will still react to the "GPL" part of the license and may not pay attention to the additional licensing clauses. I too lean more towards the LGPL license in some cases. In this case I look at what Ant has done under the Apache license. I don't see any problems they have run into (in choosing that license). If the Ant team had the option, now that they have been out there so long, I wonder if they would choose a sep. license for any reason. I wonder if there are times that they wish they could have stopped someone from doing something with another license. (I know that this is not an option as it is an apache project :) I'm not completely certain about this part. I guess I'm just not a fan of having to pander to the fear of others, but that might just be my personality. :) Perhaps instead of avoiding the issue by changing licenses, we could point people at a page explaining *why* the GPL won't make all of their proprietary IP automatically open-sourced. Like I said before: whatever we agree on I'll support. Just want to make sure I get my voice out there. ;) Matt. --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php ___ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
Re: [nant-dev] Licensing
I agree, though in [2] and [3] I believe that changes (if any) to the core NAnt code should be contributed back. Scott Hernandez wrote: All of these scenarios should be allowed, IMHO. - Original Message - From: "Brant Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [nant-dev] Licensing I think we should ask ourselves what types of uses we would want NAnt to be available to. Here are two scenarios. [1] A commerical company wants to release a custom task and charge money for it. Do we want to allow this? [2] A commerical company wants to distribute a customized version of NAnt as part of its software package (ie: A compiler company, IDE developer) and charge money for the entire package. Do we want to allow this? [3] A company creates a large software package that requires it to be "built" by the end customer. Are they allowed to distribute NAnt to do this? What if they modified NAnt in some way? brant --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php ___ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php ___ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
Re: [nant-dev] Licensing
- Original Message - From: "Matthew Mastracci" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Ian MacLean wrote: > > Matt, > > what are your specific objections to a BSD style licence ? Is it the > > greater permissiveness or just that its not GPL ? > > My largest concern is not that a company can use BSD-code, but rather > add core enhancements (ie: modifications/enhancements/bug fixes to the > core code) and keep those proprietary. I personally don't mind people > keeping peripheral enhancements to themselves (for example, someone > wishing to build a proprietary link between their app and NAnt, an NAnt > gui, etc.), but it's good to get things like bug fixes and the like back > from people using the code. It is great to get bug reports (and esp. patches) back from users. If someone is going to do this I don't think it matters what license the software is under. I don't feel pressed to send code patches to groups based on the license. Sure, I may be bound by the license to do it, but no one is going to force me. Would changing the license from GPL keep you from contributing code, ideas and being an active member of the development team? > > > Well if you consider that most users looking at using NAnt come from > > microsoft shops and have likely been exposed to/scared by the microsoft > > anti-GPL FUD. Compared to gcc users who are mostly all on Unix/linux or > > MaxOSX and are rather less fazed by that kind of thing. We have had a > > number of comments from consultants ( some from MS consulting ) and book > > authors that they would like to recomend NAnt to clients/corporations > > but had concerns about the license. Whether those concerns are valid is > > another issue however anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that this is a > > real concern for some people. I'd like to hear more from list members > > about corporate policy's regarding opensource usage and licenses. > > One other possibility I'd like to throw out these is keeping the core > codebase under the GPL (or changing to the LGPL) and offering a > "business friendly" binary distribution under a different license. This > license could exclude any GPL viral terms that might be frightening off > those with license concerns. If business users are concerned with using > GPL'd executables this could possibly satisfy them. Those people > looking to get the source could still grab the (L)GPL'd code from > Sourceforge. > > This suggestion may not require a license change, but would likely > require buy-in from the development group for the binary-licensed > distribution. >From a marketing point of view it is really good to keep a single license. The more license we use the more confusing the questions become. Going to a BSD/Apache style license is something we can evangelize and something to point to as a change in the project. We can get more people involved with NAnt if we have a less restrictive license. As Ian has pointed out, there is a lot of bad press around the viral affects of the GPL. Even if we do have a clause to lessen those restrictions, people will still react to the "GPL" part of the license and may not pay attention to the additional licensing clauses. I too lean more towards the LGPL license in some cases. In this case I look at what Ant has done under the Apache license. I don't see any problems they have run into (in choosing that license). If the Ant team had the option, now that they have been out there so long, I wonder if they would choose a sep. license for any reason. I wonder if there are times that they wish they could have stopped someone from doing something with another license. (I know that this is not an option as it is an apache project :) --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php ___ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
Re: [nant-dev] Licensing
All of these scenarios should be allowed, IMHO. - Original Message - From: "Brant Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [nant-dev] Licensing > I think we should ask ourselves what types of uses we would want NAnt to be > available to. Here are two scenarios. > > [1] A commerical company wants to release a custom task and charge money for > it. Do we want to allow this? > > [2] A commerical company wants to distribute a customized version of NAnt as > part of its software package (ie: A compiler company, IDE developer) and > charge money for the entire package. Do we want to allow this? > > [3] A company creates a large software package that requires it to be > "built" by the end customer. Are they allowed to distribute NAnt to do > this? What if they modified NAnt in some way? > > brant --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php ___ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
Re: [nant-dev] Licensing
I think we should ask ourselves what types of uses we would want NAnt to be available to. Here are two scenarios. [1] A commerical company wants to release a custom task and charge money for it. Do we want to allow this? [2] A commerical company wants to distribute a customized version of NAnt as part of its software package (ie: A compiler company, IDE developer) and charge money for the entire package. Do we want to allow this? [3] A company creates a large software package that requires it to be "built" by the end customer. Are they allowed to distribute NAnt to do this? What if they modified NAnt in some way? brant ... _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php ___ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
Re: [nant-dev] Licensing
Ian MacLean wrote: Matt, what are your specific objections to a BSD style licence ? Is it the greater permissiveness or just that its not GPL ? My largest concern is not that a company can use BSD-code, but rather add core enhancements (ie: modifications/enhancements/bug fixes to the core code) and keep those proprietary. I personally don't mind people keeping peripheral enhancements to themselves (for example, someone wishing to build a proprietary link between their app and NAnt, an NAnt gui, etc.), but it's good to get things like bug fixes and the like back from people using the code. I know that nothing in the BSD license precludes people doing this of their own accord, but it's certainly nice to have an up-front agreement that this is the case. I'm not personally attached to the GPL itself - the LGPL is probably more aligned with my personal feelings. I will, however, accept whatever the development group decides the new NAnt license should be. I'm not sure that I agree with changing the license to a BSD or Apache-style license. The code I've contributed was for a GPL project - changing it now would be the same to me as a "bait-and-switch" scheme pulled by a company. We most certainly are not trying to pull a "Bait and switch" scheme. By no means should we change the license without concensus from the contributers. Sorry about the wording - I didn't mean to post any accusations Well if you consider that most users looking at using NAnt come from microsoft shops and have likely been exposed to/scared by the microsoft anti-GPL FUD. Compared to gcc users who are mostly all on Unix/linux or MaxOSX and are rather less fazed by that kind of thing. We have had a number of comments from consultants ( some from MS consulting ) and book authors that they would like to recomend NAnt to clients/corporations but had concerns about the license. Whether those concerns are valid is another issue however anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that this is a real concern for some people. I'd like to hear more from list members about corporate policy's regarding opensource usage and licenses. One other possibility I'd like to throw out these is keeping the core codebase under the GPL (or changing to the LGPL) and offering a "business friendly" binary distribution under a different license. This license could exclude any GPL viral terms that might be frightening off those with license concerns. If business users are concerned with using GPL'd executables this could possibly satisfy them. Those people looking to get the source could still grab the (L)GPL'd code from Sourceforge. This suggestion may not require a license change, but would likely require buy-in from the development group for the binary-licensed distribution. I would, however, support adding a clause to the license exempting things like user-supplied or 3rd party tasks(though, even under the GPL these are required to be distributed if you're just keeping NAnt in-house) and development environments/plugins for such. Take a look at the SharpZipLib license (GPL + linking exception) for one that's both business- and FSF-friendly. I will take a look at it. Gerry also added a linking exception clause to the nant license see ( http://nant.sourceforge.net/license.html ). Not sure if its similar. It's a good exception - the SharpZipLib one is even more flexible: --- 8< --- As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of the library, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. Note : I've changed the exeption a bit according to the newest GNU Classpath exception. Old versions did have another exception, but the new one is clearer and it doesn't break compatibility with the old one. --- 8< --- Thanks, Matt. --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php ___ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
Re[6]: [nant-dev] onFail patch
So, the question is: should I start developing the task and also leave the onFail part for targets? Have anybody really analyzed the way in which I've done onfail -- do you have some claims on its implementation? Also, how should I address the problem of getting log only for the part really included in the block? (I'm still hadn't enough time to dive that deep into nant design, probably it's easy, I'm just not sure in that) MA> I like onFail attribute slightly better then current nant.onfailure. Setting MA> some special property looks little weird for me. But it is enough for most MA> projects, I think. MA> Martin >> Hello Gert, >> >> such a task does really makes sense, still, I feel we have two >> (a bit) different approaches to solve the problem. >> >> There is one "pro" for my approach -- it is possible to add "onfail" >> attribute to a target element, thus, if target B depends on A, the B >> gets executed and A fails during dependant targets execution, we can >> do something on A failure: >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> ... >> >> ... >> >> >> Probably, there is some sense in combining both of the approaches: >> implementing task and leaving "onfail" attribute for target >> only (I'd added it for task first and the next day found out, that I >> need to handle the case similar to the one I've described above, so I >> added it for target also). >> >> Anyway, whatever the final idea of the solution will be, I'm ready to >> participate in its development. >> -- Best regards, Ivanmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php ___ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
Re: [nant-dev] Problems with and tasks
> > As for fileset re-definitions - we allow properties to be re-defined to > > it probably makes sense to do the same for datatype references. If we > > agree that this is the desired behaviour I'll add the change. Maybe defaults to throw BuildError (instead of Internal Error) and enable override="true" ? Martin > >>There is just another issue. If one tries to redefine > >>a , the following error occurs: > >> > >> > >>INTERNAL ERROR --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php ___ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
Re: Re[4]: [nant-dev] onFail patch
I like onFail attribute slightly better then current nant.onfailure. Setting some special property looks little weird for me. But it is enough for most projects, I think. Martin > Hello Gert, > > such a task does really makes sense, still, I feel we have two > (a bit) different approaches to solve the problem. > > There is one "pro" for my approach -- it is possible to add "onfail" > attribute to a target element, thus, if target B depends on A, the B > gets executed and A fails during dependant targets execution, we can > do something on A failure: > > > > ... > > > ... > > ... > > > Probably, there is some sense in combining both of the approaches: > implementing task and leaving "onfail" attribute for target > only (I'd added it for task first and the next day found out, that I > need to handle the case similar to the one I've described above, so I > added it for target also). > > Anyway, whatever the final idea of the solution will be, I'm ready to > participate in its development. > > GD> - Original Message - > GD> From: "Ivan Tarasov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > GD> To: "Gert Driesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > GD> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 7:24 PM > GD> Subject: Re[2]: [nant-dev] onFail patch > > > >> Hello Gert, > >> > >> the problem is, that I don't want to get all the log (I want to track > >> the subproject, which failed), and also, I want more than just sending > >> e-mail. Here is one of the scenarios (again, the simplified one): > >> > >> just before the build, on the build script I check out build version > >> file, then I increment the version and try to compile. In case of > >> compilation failure I need to undo the checkout of the build version > >> file. > >> > >> I consider, there is need for some kind of "destructor" or "catch/finally" > >> construct, the patch covers some part of these functionality. > > GD> Ant actually solved this by adding a trycatch task (in AntContrib, > GD> http://ant-contrib.sourceforge.net/tasks/trycatch.html) > > GD> Gert > > > -- > Best regards, > Ivanmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. > SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. > See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: > Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php > ___ > nant-developers mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers > > --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php ___ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
Re: [nant-dev] Licensing
Hi all, I do not bother about licences much but: > > NAnt works well as a GPL'd project. It's effectively a stand-alone > > project. Any company wanting to incorporate it could simply bundle > > the executable. > > You cannot write a NAnt task that uses parts of NAnt's API and > distribute that task under a license other than GPL (think of > Subversion or NUnit distributing a NAnt task for example). Same for a > GUI sitting on top of NAnt or IDE plugins or ... > > If you use NAnt's API, you are creating a derived work. > > > I don't see how a GPL'd .NET build project would scare people away > > more than a GPL'd C++ compiler. > > Using NAnt is no problem (as using gcc or Emacs), extending NAnt would > be. Very true. I use my own tasks and patches now. Hope it is completely ok, unless I distribute them. I don't so I'm happy. But I think, linking exception _should_ be accepted. Downloading new Subversion version from their site including NAnt plugin should be great! Anyway - GPL+linking exception or Apache or BSD seems the same for me. Maybe we should rather use GPL (because project begins as GPL) and maybe add second licence (dual licence scheme). I see (and use) some projects with GPL+MPL dual licence. Martin btw: bundle nunit, nunit2 and nunitreport tasks with nunit rather than nant itself is good idea, I think! --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php ___ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
