Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

I think my argument is need vs require. Basically with this policy, we would be telling people there are certain tools you may not use. John On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 5:04 PM Ted Dunning wrote: > The single case that I can see for mystery jars in binary form is when a >

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

The single case that I can see for mystery jars in binary form is when a test case needs to cover malformed binaries or binaries produced on obsolete platforms (does anybody have a Java 1.3 compiler handy). (don't answer that, I wouldn't be surprised if a fair number of people still require 1.3

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

Yeah, Paul makes a very good point. When you're new to a platform and trying to debug tests, trying to find out whats hidden inside mysterious test jars etc is often tedious at best. Build at test time is ideal. Tom On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Paul King wrote: > ...I actually think what we ended up with does make it clearer > exactly what is going on Definitely - what Groovy did avoids having Mysterious Binaries in their releases, which we don't want. -Bertrand

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

Just FYI, Groovy had numerous such "test" jars and wrapper files and such initially. It turned out to only be a couple of hours work to remove them and build them on the fly within the build files. While I certainly see both sides of the argument about whether some "binary-like" artifacts might be

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

On 1/23/17, 9:51 AM, "John D. Ament" wrote: >> >> The gradle wrapper and similar are also not permitted. Build processes >> need to bootstrap it. >> >> >I would like to understand why, from a legal standpoint, these are not >allowed. I don't think it is a legal issue.

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 8:04 AM Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:35 AM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > > What I'm trying to make sure we're agreeing to is > > that the problem isn't that there is a JAR to .tar.gz file in the > >

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:35 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > What I'm trying to make sure we're agreeing to is > that the problem isn't that there is a JAR to .tar.gz file in the > distribution. Its that the original source is missing. No. Bundling jar files is not OK in

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 3:19 AM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > My interpretation of the term "compiled code" means compiled versions of > the source code within the package. > > So how is including a jar in a source release to which there is no source > code included

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

Hi, > My interpretation of the term "compiled code" means compiled versions of the > source code within the package. So how is including a jar in a source release to which there is no source code included (or even a pointer to that code that I can see) actually open source software? Given

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:24 PM Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 9:34 AM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM Marvin Humphrey > > > wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 6:41 AM,

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 9:34 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM Marvin Humphrey > wrote: > >> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 6:41 AM, John D. Ament >> wrote: >> > However, regarding the >> > binaries. In a

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:58 PM Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 5:47 PM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > > [3]: > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what-must-every-release-contain > > That document has been superseded. Official

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

Sorry, I'll clarify. On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 9:01 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > If you look in the tar.gz you'll see that it's R source code, and a JAR > for > > testing. Its not compiled code. > > Looks like the jars contain compiled code to me: >

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

Hi, > If you look in the tar.gz you'll see that it's R source code, and a JAR for > testing. Its not compiled code. Looks like the jars contain compiled code to me: ./sparkr-interpreter/src/main/resources/sparkr_bundle.tar.gz - Contains R code and a jar that contains class files.

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 5:47 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > [3]: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what-must-every-release-contain That document has been superseded. Official Release Policy, curated by VP Legal, is here: http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 4:59 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > Same thread. Specifically Mark T's response [1] and Craig's affirmation > [2] > > Not sure that applies here as I think we have compiled code without the > corresponding source. Can someone on the project

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

Hi, > Same thread. Specifically Mark T's response [1] and Craig's affirmation [2] Not sure that applies here as I think we have compiled code without the corresponding source. Can someone on the project confirm? Even then I would expect that to be an unusual exception where there was no

Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 6:41 AM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > However, regarding the > > binaries. In a recent discussion (on legal-discuss) it was decided that > > this was OK. Ideally the