+1 to remove. > On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:43 AM, Shai Erera <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] > > > > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
