I will try this weekend. I have windows and linux. Will try both. Else will just check the files you mentioned
On 5/24/12, Scott Deboy <scott.de...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 md5/shasums check out...license looks good. Sorry I didn't have time to > put it through its paces.. > > Scott > > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Christian Grobmeier > <grobme...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> We still need one +1. Anybody out there who can help? >> >> This vote is already open for 18 days. I suggest that we leave it open >> until Monday morning. If nobody can help, we must consider cancelling >> this release and improve the build system before the next one. >> >> That being said, Ralph and I could build log4j 1 successfully. Maybe >> the remaining voter might consider to just check the formal stuff to >> give his +1, like licenses, sigs etc. I know that usually running mvn >> test is part of a good re-check, but in this case maybe it is OK to >> rely on Ralph and my test. >> >> Lastly, I have made a VirtualBox image to build log4j. Due to its size >> it is not possible for me to upload it somewhere (not enough webspace >> and a pretty slow connection). But I offer anyone from the >> Logging-team to send a DVD with the burned image via postal service. >> >> Thanks! >> Christian >> >> >> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Ralph Goers >> <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> > Yes, this build is a bit odd. However, I was able to build it on my Mac >> successfully and I don't see any issues with it so >> > >> > +1 >> > >> > Ralph >> > >> > On May 12, 2012, at 5:37 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: >> > >> >> Fellows, any ideas what we can do now? >> >> 6 days past and we have no vote (except my implicit one). >> >> We now know we need to improve our build. But I really would like to >> >> start with that after 1.2.17 >> >> >> >> Suggestion: please let me know if you have a chance to vote or not. I >> >> will gladly wait for another while, but if it is definitely not >> >> possible, we need to see if we can cancel this vote and instead >> >> working towards an improved build. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Curt Arnold <carn...@apache.org> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On May 7, 2012, at 2:20 PM, Gary Gregory wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Hi All: >> >>>> >> >>>> Because I could not get the full build to run on Windows 7 with >> >>>> Maven >> 2 or 3. I feel reluctant to VOTE +1 here. This is a know issue due to the >> use the GNU app Winres. I get bits and pieces of the build to work but >> nothing like the level of confidence I have running Commons builds for >> different components. I can build the site (with the Maven stack trace >> noted in other RC votes), I can run the tests. The changes seems OK, >> but... >> as a new committer here I need to learn the code some more. >> >>>> >> >>>> Is the only way to get this to build is to install VirtualBox and a >> Linux distro? >> >>> >> >>> A cloud provider (Amazon Web Services, for example), a bootable USB >> >>> or >> CD would be another. A cloud provider could be problematic since you >> would >> not want to have your code signing key on a machine you don't control. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> I will note the following nits though: >> >>>> >> >>>> The build instructions use both version 1.2.16 and 1.2.17 in text >> >>>> and >> examples, see " >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/site/trunk/docs/log4j/1.2/building.html >> >>>> >> >>>> This is not critical but should be fixed in SVN. I would like to see >> version agnostic instructions or use the latest version (the one being >> built). >> >>>> >> >>>> I see this warning from M3 and M2: >> >>>> >> >>>> prepare: >> >>>> [available] DEPRECATED - <available> used to override an existing >> property. >> >>>> [available] Build file should not reuse the same property name for >> different values. >> >>>> >> >>>> Not a showstopper but should be addressed or documented in SVN. >> >>> >> >>> I haven't followed Ant for a long time. Ant properties since time >> began have been immutable once set. it was once acceptable style to take >> advantage of this documented behavior and, for example, set properties to >> a >> default value that would be ignored if the called provided an explicit >> value. Apparently, that fell out of style and hence this warning. I think >> the Nant didn't follow that lead and lots of confusion ensued. >> >>> >> >>> I can't hit the 72 hour mark, but can try to review and build within >> 24 hours. >> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> http://www.grobmeier.de >> >> https://www.timeandbill.de >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >> >> >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >> > For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> http://www.grobmeier.de >> https://www.timeandbill.de >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org >> >> > -- Sent from my mobile device Regards Tushar Kapila --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscr...@logging.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-h...@logging.apache.org
