Looks like 5.1 release process will start soon - should we remove this .jar before the release? I see there's some progress on TIKA-1581, but it doesn't look like it's going to be resolved that soon.
Shai On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > I suspect that the classes in question are in fact *not* used by Tika in > any capacity, but they are in the jar nonetheless. So one solution would > be to simply repackage the jar. I'd like to see what the Tika team says. > > Karl > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Shai Erera <[email protected]> wrote: > >> although it might be easier to work with Tika to fix that and then >>> upgrade again. >>> >> >> If jhighlight was brought into Solr distribution as a transitive >> dependency then you're right, but since we pull it in explicitly (even if >> for runtime purposes only), I think we should remove it, whether Tika >> corrects the problem or not. We can put a note in our NOTICE file for users >> to download the jar themselves until Tika fixes the problem. >> >> If people agree, I will remove it from our code. >> >> Shai >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I have created a ticket: TIKA-1581. ManifoldCF also has a Tika >>> dependency, so thank you for noting the problem. >>> >>> Karl >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Upayavira <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> You are right -both projects need to remove it, although it might be >>>> easier to work with Tika to fix that and then upgrade again. >>>> >>>> Upayavira >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 05:26 AM, Shai Erera wrote: >>>> > Sorry for the spam, just wanted to note that this dependency was >>>> added by >>>> > Steve in SOLR-6130 to resolve improper Tika 1.4->1.5 upgrade. >>>> > >>>> > The core issue lies with Tika IMO (they shouldn't rely on LGPL code >>>> too I >>>> > believe), but I am not sure if it's OK that we distribute this .jar >>>> > ourselves. >>>> > >>>> > Shai >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Shai Erera <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > One update, I did find this dependency is explicitly set in >>>> > > solr/contrib/extraction/ivy.xml, under the Tika dependencies >>>> section: >>>> > > >>>> > > <!-- Tika dependencies - see >>>> > > >>>> http://tika.apache.org/1.3/gettingstarted.html#Using_Tika_as_a_Maven_dependency >>>> > > --> >>>> > > <!-- When upgrading Tika, upgrade dependencies versions and add >>>> any >>>> > > new ones >>>> > > (except slf4j-api, commons-codec, commons-logging, >>>> > > commons-httpclient, geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec, jcip-annotations, >>>> xml-apis, >>>> > > asm) >>>> > > WARNING: Don't add netcdf / unidataCommon (partially LGPL >>>> code) >>>> > > --> >>>> > > ... >>>> > > <dependency org="com.uwyn" name="jhighlight" >>>> > > rev="${/com.uwyn/jhighlight}" conf="compile"/> >>>> > > >>>> > > So it does seem like needed by Tika only and I guess it's a runtime >>>> > > dependency, so if we don't want to release this LGPL library, we >>>> can omit >>>> > > it and put a section in the NOTICE file? >>>> > > >>>> > > Shai >>>> > > >>>> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Shai Erera <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > >> Hi >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Solr's contrib/extraction contains jhighlight-1.0.jar which >>>> declares >>>> > >> itself as dual CDDL or LGPL license. However, some of its classes >>>> are >>>> > >> distributed only under LGPL, e.g. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> com.uwyn.jhighlight.highlighter. >>>> > >> CppHighlighter.java >>>> > >> GroovyHighlighter.java >>>> > >> JavaHighlighter.java >>>> > >> XmlHighlighter.java >>>> > >> >>>> > >> I downloaded the sources from Maven ( >>>> > >> >>>> http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=com/uwyn/jhighlight/1.0/jhighlight-1.0-sources.jar >>>> ) >>>> > >> to confirm that, and also found this SVN repo: >>>> > >> http://svn.rifers.org/jhighlight/tags/release-1.0, though the >>>> project's >>>> > >> website seems to not exist anymore ( >>>> https://jhighlight.dev.java.net/). >>>> > >> >>>> > >> I didn't find any direct usage of it in our code, so I guess it's >>>> > >> probably needed by a 3rd party dependency, such as Tika. Therefore >>>> if we >>>> > >> e.g. omit it, things will compile, but may fail at runtime. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Is it OK that we distribute this .jar? >>>> > >> >>>> > >> Shai >>>> > >> >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
