On Dec 23, 2007, at 17:39, Mark Brouwer wrote:
Frank Barnaby wrote:
To be clear, the classes and jars both build fine by using the
"all" and "jars" ant targets. The javadoc no longer builds for the
end user because of the addition of the url pointing to the NOTICE
file to allow for stand-alone javadoc distributions. The release
zip files also cannot be generated through the use of the
"build.release" target. While the javadoc should build for the end
user, we never intended the end user to build release bundles.
However, I think it looks bad to have a build target that fails for
the end user--I agree that we should either fix it or remove it
from the end user build scripts.
By fixing the javadoc end-user build, the release build will be
fixed as well. The fix will require me to add the NOTICE and
LICENSE files to the source sub-directory in the source
distribution. Note that the source distribution already contains
the NOTICE and LICENSE files in the top level, but the doc and
release builds are not aware of those top-level files. After
committing the changes, I'll generate another release, another set
of corresponding signature and check-sum files, upload the files to
people-apache.org, some folks can do some sanity tests, and we can
start another vote. Did I overlook any steps?
Is this course of action we want to pursue?
Hi Frank,
I did indeed build with build.release because I believe an end user
should be able to build a release as well.
Also as I'm a newbie with regard to building the JTSK (I'm a source
consumer), as there is no README or build instruction file (something
for AR2?) it was unclear as what build targets I was supposed to
execute
(besides the default of 'all').
The top-level doc directory in the source release contains
build.html, which provides a few instructions for building. That
location was sufficient when we did not provide a release-build
target. Now that such a target is available to the end users,
however, the source release should also contain the build.html file.
This issue also illuminates the need for a few other doc files to
be added to the source sub-directory of the source release-bundle
in support of end-user release builds.
I would fix it by copying the NOTICE and LICENSE files into the source
distribution, while doing that I would also add source="1.4" in the
javac tasks in the the build files because I was kind of irritated by
that one too and had to set my JAVA_HOME to an 1.4.2 JDK (this is not
a complete fix for RIVER-212 but it is just 60 seconds of work and
prevents from other people being confronted with the issue until AR2
is
out the door for which we don't know how long it takes).
The "javac-cmd" macro-def already contains "source=1.4", and I
believe that option has been included since at least version 2.0.
Am I missing something here?
I also would suggest to fix Niclas's issue because otherwise no doubt
this issue pops up during the vote for Incubator and we don't know the
outcome.
I agree--it's a simple addition and would provide a useful level
of clarity. Is there an Apache template for such a disclaimer or
should we simply create the file from scratch, basing it on project
Wicket's disclaimer?
If you need a hand, let me know so I can help out.
Thank you--I appreciate the offer. So far, the changes are simple
enough for me to handle in short order. In fact, most of the work
is already complete. Though, I would appreciate a review after I
commit the changes and extra eyes to examine the resulting bundles.
Frank
--
Mark
