Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
Adam Lally wrote: I think we're agreed that the docbooks sources should be in the UIMA source distribution. The question then is what do do about building it. It seems our choices are: (a) Include all the jars in SVN as part of our source distribution. The licenses all seem OK, but we will need to update our NOTICE file, for our source release only. I prefer (a). The Readme / Readme First info should point to what to do to download parts not being distributed due to licensing issues. (Note: README.FIRST in the uima-docbooks project already says this). -Marshall (b) Do not include any of the jars. Require that users get them from our SVN, instead. I guess that means we wouldn't have to do anything with our NOTICE file. (But IANAL.) Which should we do? -Adam
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
Adam Lally wrote: I think we're agreed that the docbooks sources should be in the UIMA source distribution. The question then is what do do about building it. It seems our choices are: (a) Include all the jars in SVN as part of our source distribution. The licenses all seem OK, but we will need to update our NOTICE file, for our source release only. (b) Do not include any of the jars. Require that users get them from our SVN, instead. I guess that means we wouldn't have to do anything with our NOTICE file. (But IANAL.) Which should we do? I would prefer a) since if I download a source distribution I don't want to load additional files from the SVN. Seems to me like unnecessary effort. -- Michael
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
On 1/9/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Adam Lally wrote: > On 1/9/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Being that we're copying what other Apache projects do here with regard >> to 3rd party JARs, I don't think we have to >> be concerned, beyond what the README-FIRST does. >> > > Where exactly did you get this stuff from? It's from their SVN: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/velocity/docbook/trunk/ etc It's not "distributed" - e.g. it isn't put into a "build". (By "it", I mean the docbook stuff needed to build from docbook sources -> html / pdf). I can't even find their final build html / pdf documentation anywhere, even on their website. As far as I can tell the things in velocity/docbook/trunk are not being used for anything. I downloaded a velocity engine source distribution, and it contains xdocs files (from SVN under velocity/engine/trunk/xdocs), from which you can build html. But these don't seem to have anything to do with what's in SVN under velocity/docbook/trunk. So that didn't really help give us a model for what we should do. I think we're agreed that the docbooks sources should be in the UIMA source distribution. The question then is what do do about building it. It seems our choices are: (a) Include all the jars in SVN as part of our source distribution. The licenses all seem OK, but we will need to update our NOTICE file, for our source release only. (b) Do not include any of the jars. Require that users get them from our SVN, instead. I guess that means we wouldn't have to do anything with our NOTICE file. (But IANAL.) Which should we do? -Adam
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
Adam Lally wrote: On 1/9/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Being that we're copying what other Apache projects do here with regard to 3rd party JARs, I don't think we have to be concerned, beyond what the README-FIRST does. Where exactly did you get this stuff from? It's from their SVN: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/velocity/docbook/trunk/ etc It's not "distributed" - e.g. it isn't put into a "build". (By "it", I mean the docbook stuff needed to build from docbook sources -> html / pdf). -Marshall
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
On 1/9/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Being that we're copying what other Apache projects do here with regard to 3rd party JARs, I don't think we have to be concerned, beyond what the README-FIRST does. Where exactly did you get this stuff from? I got a nightly Velocity snapshot from http://svn.apache.org/snapshots/jakarta-velocity/ and can't find these jars, or anything that seems to be capable of building pdf. Surprisingly I couldn't find an SVN repo for Velocity documented anywhere on their project web pages. -Adam
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
Thilo Goetz wrote: Adam Lally wrote: On 1/9/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Good point. It's very easy to obtain the DocBook build environment - just go to our SVN repository and extract the uima-docbooks project. I think I agree we don't need to "distribute" this at all; just leave it in SVN. Are there any requirements for having 3rd party jars in SVN? If we do that, it's not clear to me if we even need to distribute the docbook sources. I suggest we not put the sources into our "distribution" packages, but just put the results of the html and pdf builds there. And maybe add something to a "README" that describes all this, and says if you want to modify the sources, get the uima-docbooks project from our SVN. The advantage of putting the docbook sources in our source distribution would be to eliminate confusion about SVN tags not matching what was actually in the release (the same reasoning as for source code). -Adam I don't think I was entirely clear in my last note. I'm +1 on distributing the docbook sources of our documentation. It's part of our code base, and I agree with Adam's reasoning about SVN tagging. What I was hoping we could do was, distribute the docbook sources and have instructions (on our website, with our distribution maybe) on where to obtain the docbook build environment, and how to install it so our docbook build works. If it's easy enough to obtain the build environment from sources other than our svn repository, that would be even better. I just don't know enough about the docbook build. There may be good reasons for wanting to check in a very specific version of the docbook build environment, because it produces the best results for our documentation. The docbook set of tooling needs to be at particular levels in order to work. Of course it is also very convenient to be able to run the docbook build from eclipse without any special setup. However, if it means less third party software in our svn repository, I'll put up with setting a variable that points at an external docbook installation. Being that we're copying what other Apache projects do here with regard to 3rd party JARs, I don't think we have to be concerned, beyond what the README-FIRST does. -Marshall
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
Adam Lally wrote: On 1/9/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Good point. It's very easy to obtain the DocBook build environment - just go to our SVN repository and extract the uima-docbooks project. I think I agree we don't need to "distribute" this at all; just leave it in SVN. Are there any requirements for having 3rd party jars in SVN? Just makes it easy to extract and use, for people who want to run the build. The Velocity project does it. Currently, the files with "problem licenses" are not included, and users have to go get them, as documented in the README-FIRST. When I started this I asked the Velocity project if there was a common repository place where people could get the docbook stuff - it could be shared by all Apache projects using it. I got an answer that that was a good idea, but I think it has been too low on anyone's priority list to get done. If we do that, it's not clear to me if we even need to distribute the docbook sources. I suggest we not put the sources into our "distribution" packages, but just put the results of the html and pdf builds there. And maybe add something to a "README" that describes all this, and says if you want to modify the sources, get the uima-docbooks project from our SVN. The advantage of putting the docbook sources in our source distribution would be to eliminate confusion about SVN tags not matching what was actually in the release (the same reasoning as for source code). OK - good point. -Marshall
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
Adam Lally wrote: On 1/9/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Good point. It's very easy to obtain the DocBook build environment - just go to our SVN repository and extract the uima-docbooks project. I think I agree we don't need to "distribute" this at all; just leave it in SVN. Are there any requirements for having 3rd party jars in SVN? If we do that, it's not clear to me if we even need to distribute the docbook sources. I suggest we not put the sources into our "distribution" packages, but just put the results of the html and pdf builds there. And maybe add something to a "README" that describes all this, and says if you want to modify the sources, get the uima-docbooks project from our SVN. The advantage of putting the docbook sources in our source distribution would be to eliminate confusion about SVN tags not matching what was actually in the release (the same reasoning as for source code). -Adam I don't think I was entirely clear in my last note. I'm +1 on distributing the docbook sources of our documentation. It's part of our code base, and I agree with Adam's reasoning about SVN tagging. What I was hoping we could do was, distribute the docbook sources and have instructions (on our website, with our distribution maybe) on where to obtain the docbook build environment, and how to install it so our docbook build works. If it's easy enough to obtain the build environment from sources other than our svn repository, that would be even better. I just don't know enough about the docbook build. There may be good reasons for wanting to check in a very specific version of the docbook build environment, because it produces the best results for our documentation. Of course it is also very convenient to be able to run the docbook build from eclipse without any special setup. However, if it means less third party software in our svn repository, I'll put up with setting a variable that points at an external docbook installation. --Thilo
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
On 1/9/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Good point. It's very easy to obtain the DocBook build environment - just go to our SVN repository and extract the uima-docbooks project. I think I agree we don't need to "distribute" this at all; just leave it in SVN. Are there any requirements for having 3rd party jars in SVN? If we do that, it's not clear to me if we even need to distribute the docbook sources. I suggest we not put the sources into our "distribution" packages, but just put the results of the html and pdf builds there. And maybe add something to a "README" that describes all this, and says if you want to modify the sources, get the uima-docbooks project from our SVN. The advantage of putting the docbook sources in our source distribution would be to eliminate confusion about SVN tags not matching what was actually in the release (the same reasoning as for source code). -Adam
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
Thilo Goetz wrote: Marshall, how hard is it to obtain and install the DocBook build env? We're currently completely free of third-party licenses, and while it seems possible to include the DocBook stuff, it'll be some work to get everything straightened out. Is it worth the effort? We tell people to install Maven and a Java SDK as well. Can't we just put up some instructions on how to set up the DocBook build env and remove it from svn and our distribution? Good point. It's very easy to obtain the DocBook build environment - just go to our SVN repository and extract the uima-docbooks project. I think I agree we don't need to "distribute" this at all; just leave it in SVN. If we do that, it's not clear to me if we even need to distribute the docbook sources. I suggest we not put the sources into our "distribution" packages, but just put the results of the html and pdf builds there. And maybe add something to a "README" that describes all this, and says if you want to modify the sources, get the uima-docbooks project from our SVN. -Marshall --Thilo Marshall Schor wrote: Adam Lally wrote: I added the Maven assembly descriptor for the source distribution. There is one issue. I didn't include uima-docbooks, so with the resulting source distribution you can build the jars/plugins but you can't build the actual binary distribution (if you run mvn assembly:assembly you get a file not found error). Should we include the docbooks sources in the source distribution? Yes, I think. Even if we do that, there's still the matter of the 3rd-party JARs needed to run docbook - I'm not sure if we're allowed to bundle them in our distribution even if we wanted to. Don't include the things we're not allowed to redistribute. Those should not even be in SVN, I think. -Adam
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
Marshall, how hard is it to obtain and install the DocBook build env? We're currently completely free of third-party licenses, and while it seems possible to include the DocBook stuff, it'll be some work to get everything straightened out. Is it worth the effort? We tell people to install Maven and a Java SDK as well. Can't we just put up some instructions on how to set up the DocBook build env and remove it from svn and our distribution? --Thilo Marshall Schor wrote: Adam Lally wrote: I added the Maven assembly descriptor for the source distribution. There is one issue. I didn't include uima-docbooks, so with the resulting source distribution you can build the jars/plugins but you can't build the actual binary distribution (if you run mvn assembly:assembly you get a file not found error). Should we include the docbooks sources in the source distribution? Yes, I think. Even if we do that, there's still the matter of the 3rd-party JARs needed to run docbook - I'm not sure if we're allowed to bundle them in our distribution even if we wanted to. Don't include the things we're not allowed to redistribute. Those should not even be in SVN, I think. -Adam
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
Adam Lally wrote: On 1/8/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does that mean it's OK to have these jars in SVN and in the source > distribution? Yes. They need to be called out in the Notices file. The site http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html has specific instructions for Mozilla Public License 1.0. Hmmm... so does this mean our NOTICE file for our source release is different than our NOTICE file for our binary release (which doesn't contain these jars)? Well, yes, unless we have just one "release" that has both. I think also you could try to be constructively creative - like having one notice file, with conditional sections: "This section applied to the source release ---" etc. -Marshall
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
On 1/8/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does that mean it's OK to have these jars in SVN and in the source > distribution? Yes. They need to be called out in the Notices file. The site http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html has specific instructions for Mozilla Public License 1.0. Hmmm... so does this mean our NOTICE file for our source release is different than our NOTICE file for our binary release (which doesn't contain these jars)? -Adam
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
Adam Lally wrote: Also... is uima-docbooks/Source_UIMA_SDK_Guide_Ref needed for anything or should we delete it from SVN? This is the original xhtml sources from which we derived the docbook sources. It should not be in the distribution. I think it can be deleted, but I would like to do the deletion maybe 3 months from now? (Just in case we discover something's messed up). -Marshall
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
Adam Lally wrote: On 1/8/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Adam Lally wrote: > Even if we do that, there's still the matter of the 3rd-party JARs > needed to run docbook - I'm not sure if we're allowed to bundle them > in our distribution even if we wanted to. Don't include the things we're not allowed to redistribute. Those should not even be in SVN, I think. The README in uima-docbook says to get JAI (Java Advanced Imaging Library) from Sun. Those jars aren't in SVN, and I'll exclude them from the source distribution. But can you confirm if the ones that are in SVN are OK to distribute? According to the LICENSES file: - avalon-framework, batik, fop, xercesImpl, xml-resolver are distributed unter the Apache Software License 2.0. See APACHE.license for information - saxon is distributed under the Mozilla Public License 1.0. See SAXON.license for information Does that mean it's OK to have these jars in SVN and in the source distribution? Yes. They need to be called out in the Notices file. The site http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html has specific instructions for Mozilla Public License 1.0. -Marshall
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
Also... is uima-docbooks/Source_UIMA_SDK_Guide_Ref needed for anything or should we delete it from SVN? -Adam
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
On 1/8/07, Marshall Schor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Adam Lally wrote: > Even if we do that, there's still the matter of the 3rd-party JARs > needed to run docbook - I'm not sure if we're allowed to bundle them > in our distribution even if we wanted to. Don't include the things we're not allowed to redistribute. Those should not even be in SVN, I think. The README in uima-docbook says to get JAI (Java Advanced Imaging Library) from Sun. Those jars aren't in SVN, and I'll exclude them from the source distribution. But can you confirm if the ones that are in SVN are OK to distribute? According to the LICENSES file: - avalon-framework, batik, fop, xercesImpl, xml-resolver are distributed unter the Apache Software License 2.0. See APACHE.license for information - saxon is distributed under the Mozilla Public License 1.0. See SAXON.license for information Does that mean it's OK to have these jars in SVN and in the source distribution? -Adam
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
Adam Lally wrote: I added the Maven assembly descriptor for the source distribution. There is one issue. I didn't include uima-docbooks, so with the resulting source distribution you can build the jars/plugins but you can't build the actual binary distribution (if you run mvn assembly:assembly you get a file not found error). Should we include the docbooks sources in the source distribution? Yes, I think. Even if we do that, there's still the matter of the 3rd-party JARs needed to run docbook - I'm not sure if we're allowed to bundle them in our distribution even if we wanted to. Don't include the things we're not allowed to redistribute. Those should not even be in SVN, I think. -Adam
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
I added the Maven assembly descriptor for the source distribution. There is one issue. I didn't include uima-docbooks, so with the resulting source distribution you can build the jars/plugins but you can't build the actual binary distribution (if you run mvn assembly:assembly you get a file not found error). Should we include the docbooks sources in the source distribution? Even if we do that, there's still the matter of the 3rd-party JARs needed to run docbook - I'm not sure if we're allowed to bundle them in our distribution even if we wanted to. -Adam
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
Thilo Goetz wrote: Marshall Schor wrote: Thilo Goetz wrote: Sorry, I meant source distribution. OK, I'm still not sure why this is needed? If folks want the source, don't they get that from a tagged SVN level? -Marshall Apache projects always do a source distribution. As I understand it, the kind of binary distributions we (UIMA) do are a nice-to-have, but source distribution is a must-have. I haven't found this on the Apache web yet, but that's what I get from following various Apache mailing lists. Right. I spoke with Ken Coar - he says there have been problems in the past with Subversion Taggings really representing what's being distributed - so it will produce more happiness, less objections if we "package" the official source level and include the binaries. -Marshall
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
Marshall Schor wrote: Thilo Goetz wrote: Sorry, I meant source distribution. OK, I'm still not sure why this is needed? If folks want the source, don't they get that from a tagged SVN level? -Marshall Apache projects always do a source distribution. As I understand it, the kind of binary distributions we (UIMA) do are a nice-to-have, but source distribution is a must-have. I haven't found this on the Apache web yet, but that's what I get from following various Apache mailing lists. --Thilo
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
Thilo Goetz wrote: Sorry, I meant source distribution. OK, I'm still not sure why this is needed? If folks want the source, don't they get that from a tagged SVN level? -Marshall
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
Sorry, I meant source distribution. Marshall Schor wrote: Thilo Goetz (JIRA) wrote: Add source build Key: UIMA-164 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-164 I'm not sure what this is. If it is to build the "sources", how come that is needed? Isn't a tagged branch in SVN equivalent to the "sources"? -Marshall
Re: [jira] Created: (UIMA-164) Add source build
Thilo Goetz (JIRA) wrote: Add source build Key: UIMA-164 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-164 I'm not sure what this is. If it is to build the "sources", how come that is needed? Isn't a tagged branch in SVN equivalent to the "sources"? -Marshall
