Hi Geertjan, I can’t personally speak for adopt but my understanding from previous conversation was Adopt was amicable to this. I think the only issue is man power to get it done.
Kind regards, Kirk > On Nov 28, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <geert...@apache.org> wrote: > > If we have AdoptOpenJDK officially providing a bundle together with > NetBeans, then I think we should consider not providing an installer at all > — and just make the convenience binary available as a ZIP and point to > AdoptOpenJDK and OpenBeans and any other bundlers/distributors. > > Gj > > > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 17:53, Geertjan Wielenga <geert...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> Excellent news, Kirk. >> >> How do we get this done? >> >> Gj >> >> On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 17:49, Kirk Pepperdine <k...@kodewerk.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Again, I believe that you could distribute from Adopt with a JDK bundled. >>> So maybe this is a case where using a 3rd party makes sense. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Kirk >>> >>> >>>> On Nov 28, 2019, at 8:45 AM, Kenneth Fogel <kfo...@dawsoncollege.qc.ca> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I apologize if I misunderstood but the conversation appeared to me, >>> likely incorrectly, to go beyond just bundling a Java JDK. The installers >>> that are already there, are they downloading a JDK if one is not present? >>> Requiring a separate install of Java is the status quo. If we could make >>> that part of the NetBeans installer then we should an we should pursue an >>> exemption to Apache policies if required. >>>> >>>> Ken >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Geertjan Wielenga <geert...@apache.org> >>>> Sent: November 28, 2019 11:30 AM >>>> To: dev@netbeans.apache.org >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping Installers from the Release Process >>> leave that work to Third Party Distributors >>>> >>>> You’re aware that we’re already distributing an installer, right? And >>> that that is not what we’re talking about? >>>> >>>> We’re talking about the fact that we can’t bundle the JDK with that >>> installer and then distribute that installer from Apache. >>>> >>>> A simple link on our download page to OpenBeans and AdoptOpenJDK and >>> any other distributor is all we need, for the installers of NetBeans that >>> bundle the JDK. >>>> >>>> Gj >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 17:20, Kenneth Fogel <kfo...@dawsoncollege.qc.ca >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is a bad idea. I personally feel that an installer is mandatory. >>>>> Eclipse and IntelliJ have installers for all platforms. Leaving it to >>>>> third parties will mean that we have no oversight on the quality and >>>>> ease of use of the installer. Only distributing a zip file implies >>>>> that skills beyond learning to code with NetBeans will be required. We >>>>> can pretty much write off the education sector if there is no >>>>> installer. Sorry to be harsh but this is a line I believe we must not >>> cross. >>>>> >>>>> It is unfortunates, as someone has pointed out, that Apache is not end >>>>> user friendly but that is no excuse. NetBeans is an end user program >>>>> and must be as easy to install as any other IDE and have an official >>> installer. >>>>> >>>>> Ken >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Laszlo Kishalmi <laszlo.kisha...@gmail.com> >>>>> Sent: November 27, 2019 2:41 PM >>>>> To: Apache NetBeans <dev@netbeans.apache.org> >>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Dropping Installers from the Release Process leave >>>>> that work to Third Party Distributors >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> It is a great burden to us to provide the best out-of-the-box install >>>>> experience with NetBeans. That would mean, providing an installer with >>>>> JDK, nb-javac probably javafx. >>>>> >>>>> See the threads: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a3e6051130e18aae3f7a81c562a63ac96 >>>>> d3a3a07d4bcbee074392d59@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/489f17e30d9125ee48e2d78dc36572db6 >>>>> a3f5d6474f492458e0db151@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E >>>>> >>>>> On 11/26/19 9:29 PM, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I try to summary the lengthy threads about bundling OpenJDK GPL+CPE >>>>>> with Apache NetBeans. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are mainly two readings of GPL+CPE: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. OpenJDK (GPL+CPE) + NetBeans (Apache) = Executable which can be >>>>>> distributed under Apache license, due to CPE 2. CPE only allows >>>>>> other product built on Java to be distributed >>>>>> under their own license. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I'm not a lawyer, I cannot answer which interpretation is correct >>>>>> (maybe none of them). ASF has every right to regard the second >>>>>> interpretation, thus GPL+CPE ended up in the Category-X licenses. >>>>>> >>>>>> The following viable possibilities were brought up: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. We may apply for an exception to the board 2. Use some download >>>>>> logic in the installer. >>>>>> 3. Leave the binary packaging and distribution to third parties. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regarding that there are interest from third parties to built on >>>>>> Apache NetBeans, I'm going to recommend the PMC to select a few >>>>>> distributor for creating installer packages and we limit/drop our >>>>>> installer bundle creation in the future. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> >>>>>> Laszlo Kishalmi >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> As of me option 2 is questionable. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> How I imagine that: >>>>> >>>>> 1. From 11.3 we remove the convenience binaries and installers from >>>>> our download page >>>>> 2. We would still create, sign and host our nbm-s. >>>>> 3. On our download page we have the source package and a section for >>>>> third party distributors. >>>>> >>>>> Well of course this thread is just to start a discussion about this >>>>> matter. I know it would hurt the brand, but probably it is better than >>>>> produce some sub-optimal installers while other parties can come with >>>>> all the bells and whistles. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> >>>>> Laszlo Kishalmi >>>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
