I don't think I follow. The source references an lgpl Api, and we are publishing binary that references it in nexus. Are you sure it's not an issue?
Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 6, 2016, at 10:36 PM, Seetharam Venkatesh <[email protected]> wrote: > > If it's a runtime dependency, you are fine. Apache only supports source > releases. We vote on source tar ball and not binary artifacts. > > Makes sense? > > Sent from my iPhone, > Venkatesh > >> On Oct 6, 2016, at 12:40 PM, David Lotts <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Yes, geotools is a runtime dependency. No geotools source code is >> distributed. >> >> By that I mean: Geotools source code is not in our source code repository. >> Only references: imports in our *.java files and dependencies entries in >> our pom.xml. Because of this maven will package geotools JARs (binaries) >> in our shaded/uber JAR and WAR files that we distribute. >> >> With option 1 or 2 as discussed, maven will exclude the geotools jars in >> our JARs and WARs. Users of Rya can follow some instructions that we >> provide to add "-P indexing" (or similar) to their Maven build command >> create their own jar/war containing the optional Rya features and geotools >> binaries. >> >> Your "you should be okay." mean which of these???? >> A. option 1 and option 2 will work around the issue and we should proceed >> before we release, >> - OR - >> B. We are already in compliance and this is not a blocker for release as >> long as we are not redistributing geotools source code. >> >> Hopeful for interpretation B, but expecting and happy with A. >> >> david. >> >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Seetharam Venkatesh <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Quick question - geotools is a runtime dependency? Are you shipping the >>> source code? If not, you should be okay. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone, >>> Venkatesh >>> >>>> On Oct 6, 2016, at 7:52 AM, Puja Valiyil <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> Talking with Aaron, it seems like there were two paths forward for >>>> refactoring in order to create a release. To refresh everyone's memory, >>>> the issue was that the geo-indexing extensions to Rya pull in geotools, >>>> which prohibits us from releasing Rya under an Apache 2 license. There >>> may >>>> be some more particulars that I'm glossing over -- someone please chime >>> in >>>> if they feel it is key to the discussion. >>>> The two paths forward we had were: >>>> 1. Make all of the indexing project and its downstream dependencies >>>> optional and exclude them from a release >>>> -- The indexing project includes several "optional" extensions to Rya >>>> (advanced indexing strategies). Prior to Rya becoming an apache project, >>>> these indexing extensions were optional and there was a separate profile >>>> for including them. This option involves reverting back to that mindset. >>>> The main argument against this is that these indexing >>> strategies/extensions >>>> are not in fact optional but are "core" to Rya and can't be excluded. >>>> >>>> 2. Refactor Rya to pull geoindexing into a separate project and exclude >>>> that project from the release. >>>> - We could refactor Rya to have geoindexing be its own project and add a >>>> profile to include that in the build. This would invovle moving the >>> class >>>> mvm.rya.indexing.GeoIndexer and packages mem.rya.indexing.accumulo.geo >>> and >>>> mvm.rya.indexing.mongodb.geo to a separate project and then >>> removing/moving >>>> references to geoindexing anywhere else. Another option is to refactor >>> the >>>> GeoIndexer interface to remove the geotools dependency. >>>> >>>> I think #1 is a good immediate path for a release and that #2 is a good >>>> longer term path forward. Since it's probably in our best interests as a >>>> community to get an apache release sooner rather than later, I'd rather >>> us >>>> go with #1 since it would quicker. I also think that most users of Rya >>>> would be ok with excluding the indexing project since it is not core >>>> functionality for Rya. While #2 is a better long term plan, it involves >>>> some pretty extensive refactoring that would be difficult to do well in a >>>> timely manner. >>>> >>>> Any thoughts? >>>
