On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 19:41, Laszlo Kishalmi <laszlo.kisha...@gmail.com> wrote: > I do not think that after this discussion we would get the exception > from the board Geertjan might try to bring it up there as well.
Well, we'll see. I personally have serious misgivings about ASF's current position on "platform" dependencies when the world is changing and moving to bundling that platform. And on the issue of binary releases not being "official" - I've just signed 5 NBMs with an ASF code certificate! I think the current position on either of these things brings the sustainability of Java projects at ASF into question, and particularly our long-term viability. I would really like a more forward thinking approach closer to https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/GPL_CE_Policy.php ! > As of me option 2 is questionable. Maybe! It's doable. I did start looking at doing this in an InnoSetup based installer recently. > Option 3. is a bit hard to say, but if we can't produce proper > installation packages, it would probably better to not create those > packages at all, leave that for others. ... > 1. From 11.3 we remove the convenience binaries and installers from > our download page If we go down that route, I don't think we should remove the binary zip. In fact, that could be used as the basis for other people's installers. eg. an AppImage build script could directly download and embed that. There was some conversation a while back about AdoptOpenJDK making bundled installers from our sources. That might be a good option to follow up on again if we go down this route. I'd prefer fostering a good relationship with a community focused distributor. Best wishes, Neil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.apache.org For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
