These patches are Debian build related. They are removing window stuff,
and renaming some library references used in our code. Seeing all these,
it is no wonder that the maintenance of the NetBeans Package is hard.
On 11/2/19 12:39 PM, Eric Bresie wrote:
Silly question these seem like from
Silly question these seem like from 10.0 timeframe and/or did any of these
changes make into current branch?
What changes/defects were these associated?
Eric Bresie
ebre...@gmail.com
> On November 2, 2019 at 5:52:29 AM CDT, Emilian Bold
> wrote:
> Could you point me to some document with the
On 11/2/19 7:51 AM, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote:
I'm on Ubuntu (not Debian), checked what is available for the platform.
They have the 8.1 platform as library there. Other than that, it is the
10.0 harness.
Right. Here's the full list:
Package netbeans
On 11/2/19 7:26 AM, Matthias Bläsing wrote:
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 02.11.2019, 07:19 -0700 schrieb Laszlo Kishalmi:
As of netbeans Debian package. It kind of hurts the brand mostly by
being unmaintained. The current version can be installed, but it
installs with Java 11 which we did not support
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 02.11.2019, 07:19 -0700 schrieb Laszlo Kishalmi:
> As of netbeans Debian package. It kind of hurts the brand mostly by
> being unmaintained. The current version can be installed, but it
> installs with Java 11 which we did not support at version 10. (Not
> mentioning that
Ugh, just woke up for such an active thread...
Just to be correct: OpenJDK is under GPL with ClassPath Exception.
Theoretically the Classpath Exception part allows that if you modify the
classpath only, then you can distribute the JDK under any other license.
This would allow us bundle a JDK
OK.
--emi
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 2:27 PM Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>
> I don’t think we need to vote on anything that does not divert from the
> standard Apache Way.
>
> Gj
>
>
> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 at 13:10, Emilian Bold wrote:
>
> > > No. It's the other way around -- if the NetBeans community
I don’t think we need to vote on anything that does not divert from the
standard Apache Way.
Gj
On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 at 13:10, Emilian Bold wrote:
> > No. It's the other way around -- if the NetBeans community were to not
> > defer to Apache (and why wouldn't they), that's when there should be
> No. It's the other way around -- if the NetBeans community were to not
> defer to Apache (and why wouldn't they), that's when there should be a FAQ.
I can work with this. But note that this was not the conclusion of any
previous talk.
> You'd simply be bundling it with a JDK and not modifying
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 12:44 PM Emilian Bold wrote:
>
> What I'm looking for is:
>
> * transparency: the project having some guidelines about this. A
> simple page where you link to
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#Name-changes is fine
> by me, but you can't expect some sort
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 12:44 PM Emilian Bold wrote:
> > Which JDK is CoolBeans currently bundling?
>
> AdoptOpenJDK 11.0.4.
>
> > NetBeans is simply an Apache project. There's no need to ask what the
> > NetBeans position or the NetBeans PMC position is.
>
> There was a discussion about this
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 12:44 PM Emilian Bold wrote:
> > Which JDK is CoolBeans currently bundling?
>
> AdoptOpenJDK 11.0.4.
>
> > NetBeans is simply an Apache project. There's no need to ask what the
> > NetBeans position or the NetBeans PMC position is.
>
> There was a discussion about this
> Which JDK is CoolBeans currently bundling?
AdoptOpenJDK 11.0.4.
> NetBeans is simply an Apache project. There's no need to ask what the
> NetBeans position or the NetBeans PMC position is.
There was a discussion about this without a conclusion. If the PMC
position is that they defer to Apache
Yup, that would be cool.
Gj
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 12:09 PM Neil C Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019, 10:56 Geertjan Wielenga, wrote:
>
> > Seems to be Markus Koschany, I'll contact him. If the distro is really
> > different in a significant way, they could call it DebianBeans, maybe.
> :-)
>
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 12:03 PM Emilian Bold wrote:
> > It would be great if you'd bundle CoolBeans with a JDK distro, e.g.,
> > AdoptOpenJDK. Will you do it?
>
>
> Are you saying the NetBeans PMC expressly disallows a NetBeans
> installer that would bundle AdoptOpenJDK?
>
I'm saying the exact
On Sat, 2 Nov 2019, 10:56 Geertjan Wielenga, wrote:
> Seems to be Markus Koschany, I'll contact him. If the distro is really
> different in a significant way, they could call it DebianBeans, maybe. :-)
>
What would life be if you couldn't rely on Debian to screw up a Java
package?! ;-)
Not
Ah, right, a discussion was about whether AdoptOpenJDK would bundle
NetBeans.
Which JDK is CoolBeans currently bundling?
NetBeans is simply an Apache project. There's no need to ask what the
NetBeans position or the NetBeans PMC position is.
Here are the Apache licensing terms:
> It would be great if you'd bundle CoolBeans with a JDK distro, e.g.,
> AdoptOpenJDK. Will you do it?
CoolBeans has bundled a JDK since day one, November 2018(!).
So, considering various Linux distros, etc. produce Apache trademarked
artefacts (httpd, netbeans, etc) while also adding their
Seems to be Markus Koschany, I'll contact him. If the distro is really
different in a significant way, they could call it DebianBeans, maybe. :-)
Gj
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 11:54 AM Geertjan Wielenga
wrote:
> Interesting, a pretty knowledgeable person there who could be contributing
> to
Interesting, a pretty knowledgeable person there who could be contributing
to NetBeans directly, do you know who it is?
It would be great if you'd bundle CoolBeans with a JDK distro, e.g.,
AdoptOpenJDK. Will you do it?
Gj
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 11:53 AM Emilian Bold wrote:
> Could you point
Could you point me to some document with the conclusion (FAQ, or whatever)?
> How is Debian NetBeans modified?
https://sources.debian.org/src/netbeans/10.0-3/debian/patches/ for starters.
--emi
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 12:40 PM Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>
> Yes, it did. And that was and is the
Yes, it did. And that was and is the outcome.
How is Debian NetBeans modified?
Gj
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 11:37 AM Emilian Bold wrote:
> The discussion never had an outcome. That is why I'm asking. Debian
> NetBeans is *modified*.
>
> --emi
>
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 12:31 PM Geertjan Wielenga
The discussion never had an outcome. That is why I'm asking. Debian
NetBeans is *modified*.
--emi
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 12:31 PM Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>
> If NetBeans is unmodified it is NetBeans, regardless of what you want to
> combine it with. It's been discussed and this is the outcome.
If NetBeans is unmodified it is NetBeans, regardless of what you want to
combine it with. It's been discussed and this is the outcome.
Gj
On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 11:04 AM Emilian Bold wrote:
> > Any particular reason?
>
> Well, I saw the new release, then the snapcraft release which reminded
>
> Any particular reason?
Well, I saw the new release, then the snapcraft release which reminded
me of the other NetBeans 'forks' under, for example, Debian which
still call themselves NetBeans although they are not released by
Apache. So I remembered we had a talk long ago about this.
>From a
Makes sense.
Gj
On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 at 09:46, Neil C Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Nov 2019, 06:12 Emilian Bold, wrote:
>
> > I'm curious what the PMC stance on the NetBeans brand and trademark is
> > these days.
> >
>
> Any particular reason?
>
> I personally remain of the view that convenience
On Sat, 2 Nov 2019, 06:12 Emilian Bold, wrote:
> I'm curious what the PMC stance on the NetBeans brand and trademark is
> these days.
>
Any particular reason?
I personally remain of the view that convenience binaries made by anyone
from our (unmodified) source releases should be allowed under
I'm curious what the PMC stance on the NetBeans brand and trademark is
these days. Is there some FAQ or other resource I could read?
Does this seem correct?
> if someone wants to re-distribute effectively (for some meaningful sense)
> unmodified Apache NetBeans under the NetBeans name, it is not
28 matches
Mail list logo
