oliver.he...@oliver-heger.de /divdivDate:09/20/2014 09:55
(GMT-05:00) /divdivTo: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
/divdivSubject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Daemon 1.0.15 windows
binary package
with signed executables /divdiv
/div+1
Oliver
Am 15.09.2014 um 23:05 schrieb
: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
/divdivSubject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Daemon 1.0.15 windows
binary package
with signed executables /divdiv
/div+1
Oliver
Am 15.09.2014 um 23:05 schrieb Mark Thomas:
All,
After a few teething problems with the signing
On 2014-09-27, Gary Gregory wrote:
What is the status of this VOTE?
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201409.mbox/%3C541FF178.1030204%40apache.org%3E
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Stefan Bodewig bode...@apache.org wrote:
On 2014-09-27, Gary Gregory wrote:
What is the status of this VOTE?
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201409.mbox/%3C541FF178.1030204%40apache.org%3E
Thanks!
Gary
Stefan
to be valid.
Mark
Gary
div Original message /divdivFrom: Oliver Heger
oliver.he...@oliver-heger.de /divdivDate:09/20/2014 09:55 (GMT-05:00)
/divdivTo: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
/divdivSubject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Daemon 1.0.15
+1
Oliver
Am 15.09.2014 um 23:05 schrieb Mark Thomas:
All,
After a few teething problems with the signing service, I now have a
version of the Apache Commons Daemon 1.0.15 Windows binary distribution
where the Windows executables have been digitally signed ready for release.
The zip is
How should reviewers test this RC?
Gary
div Original message /divdivFrom: Oliver Heger
oliver.he...@oliver-heger.de /divdivDate:09/20/2014 09:55 (GMT-05:00)
/divdivTo: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
/divdivSubject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Commons Daemon
Ping.
This vote has been open for more than 72 hours and has only attracted
one binding PMC vote.
Please could I ask folks, and PMC members in particular, to take a look
at this. It should be an easy vote since the binary is almost identical
to the 1.0.15 binary already released.
Cheers,
Mark
On 19 September 2014 10:13, Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org wrote:
Ping.
This vote has been open for more than 72 hours and has only attracted
one binding PMC vote.
Please could I ask folks, and PMC members in particular, to take a look
at this. It should be an easy vote since the binary is
+1
could see the signature on my Win7 VM and Windows seemed to like it.
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
All,
After a few teething problems with the signing service, I now have a
version of the Apache Commons Daemon 1.0.15 Windows binary distribution
where the Windows executables have been digitally signed ready for release.
The zip is identical to this file:
On 15/09/2014 22:05, Mark Thomas wrote:
All,
After a few teething problems with the signing service, I now have a
version of the Apache Commons Daemon 1.0.15 Windows binary distribution
where the Windows executables have been digitally signed ready for release.
The zip is identical to
Hello,
+1 from me, too.
(even when I am not so sure that code signing in OSS projects/upstream
projects is always usefull).
Gruss
Bernd
BTW: at my shop, we use the Eclipse CBI signing plugin (server based).
http://git.eclipse.org/c/cbi/org.eclipse.cbi.maven.plugins.git/about/
Am Mon, 15 Sep
Hi,
sebb wrote:
On 3 April 2013 11:12, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
On 04/03/2013 11:48 AM, sebb wrote:
On 3 April 2013 06:56, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
So building from the tag should be equivalent to building from the
source
archive.
Not necessary. Source
On 3 April 2013 06:56, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
On 04/03/2013 02:21 AM, sebb wrote:
On 2 April 2013 16:25, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
On 04/02/2013 05:06 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
And BTW, build number can use multiple sources and its primary
On 04/03/2013 11:48 AM, sebb wrote:
On 3 April 2013 06:56, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
So building from the tag should be equivalent to building from the source
archive.
Not necessary. Source distribution might have some pre-generated code.
Many projects work like that and some
Hi Sebb,
sebb wrote:
On 3 April 2013 06:56, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
On 04/03/2013 02:21 AM, sebb wrote:
On 2 April 2013 16:25, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
On 04/02/2013 05:06 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
And BTW, build number can use multiple
On 04/03/2013 12:14 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Sebb,
This is the point: They cannot be identical, since the manifest contains
also stuff like build time, user name, JDK version (snipped):
== %
$ catmf commons-configuration-1.8.jar
Created-By: Apache Maven Bundle
On 03.04.2013 12:14, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Sebb,
sebb wrote:
On 3 April 2013 06:56, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
On 04/03/2013 02:21 AM, sebb wrote:
On 2 April 2013 16:25, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
On 04/02/2013 05:06 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
On 04/03/2013 12:56 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
From reading this thread my understanding is that the only *minor*
annoyance here is, that the current build procedure includes a metadata
(manifest) entry, that *looks* broken when building not from an svn
checkout but instead from an export or an
Le 03/04/2013 12:48, Mladen Turk a écrit :
See the point?
Third part will always use our official source distribution. Never SVN tag.
The Debian packages are usually built from the source distribution, but
sometimes a SVN tag/revision is used instead. This happens for projects
that do not
On 3 April 2013 11:12, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
On 04/03/2013 11:48 AM, sebb wrote:
On 3 April 2013 06:56, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
So building from the tag should be equivalent to building from the
source
archive.
Not necessary. Source distribution might have
Mladen Turk wrote:
On 03/30/2013 11:47 PM, sebb wrote:
On 30 March 2013 20:50, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
Not sure what would be the reason to have that (SVN) info in the
manifest at the first place.
It shows that the build was done from the relevant tag.
mvn
On 04/02/2013 09:49 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
On 03/30/2013 11:47 PM, sebb wrote:
On 30 March 2013 20:50, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
Not sure what would be the reason to have that (SVN) info in the
manifest at the first place.
It shows that the build was done
Hi Mladen,
Mladen Turk wrote:
On 04/02/2013 09:49 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
On 03/30/2013 11:47 PM, sebb wrote:
On 30 March 2013 20:50, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
Not sure what would be the reason to have that (SVN) info in the
manifest at the first place.
On 04/02/2013 03:30 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Mladen,
Mladen Turk wrote:
On 04/02/2013 09:49 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
On 03/30/2013 11:47 PM, sebb wrote:
On 30 March 2013 20:50, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
Not sure what would be the reason to have that
Hi Mladen,
Mladen Turk wrote:
On 04/02/2013 03:30 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi Mladen,
Mladen Turk wrote:
On 04/02/2013 09:49 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
On 03/30/2013 11:47 PM, sebb wrote:
On 30 March 2013 20:50, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
Not sure what
On 04/02/2013 05:06 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
And BTW, build number can use multiple sources and its primary usage
is with continuous integration. Our release version is build number in
this case.
We configured the build to take it from the current svn number to reflect
the
On 2 April 2013 16:25, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
On 04/02/2013 05:06 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
And BTW, build number can use multiple sources and its primary usage
is with continuous integration. Our release version is build number in
this case.
We configured
On 04/03/2013 02:21 AM, sebb wrote:
On 2 April 2013 16:25, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
On 04/02/2013 05:06 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
And BTW, build number can use multiple sources and its primary usage
is with continuous integration. Our release version is build
With 3 binding votes (Gary, Phil, Mladen) and one non-binding
vote (Ognjen) I declare this vote as passed.
On 03/28/2013 02:12 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Please vote (vote will remain open for at least 72 hours).
Regards
--
^TM
On 03/30/2013 11:47 PM, sebb wrote:
On 30 March 2013 20:50, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
Not sure what would be the reason to have that (SVN) info in the manifest
at the first place.
It shows that the build was done from the relevant tag.
mvn -DbuildNumber=1234 -DscmBranch=54678
On 03/30/2013 09:06 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Jörg Schaible wrote:
And I cannot build the native part if an IBM JDK is the current JDK, because
it does not contain a jni_md.h file.
./configure --with-java=/opt/ibm-java-x86_64-70
or
export JAVA_HOME=/opt/ibm-java-x86_64-70
./configure
and
+1 for the release.
I don't see the manifest issue as a blocker.
It would be good to get rid of the full distros pushed to maven
repos, though. As that is technically not part of the release, I
don't see that as a blocker either.
Phil
On 3/28/13 6:12 AM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Apache Commons
On 03/28/2013 02:12 PM, Mladen Turk wrote:
Apache Commons Daemon 1.0.15 is
[X] +1 Release
[ ] +0 OK, but...
[ ] -0 OK, but really should fix...
[ ] -1 I oppose this release because...
My vote FTR.
Regards
--
^TM
Hi,
Mladen Turk wrote:
Apache Commons Daemon 1.0.15 based on RC1 is ready.
This is bug fix release fixing both bugs and regressions
found in previous release(s).
Binaries and sources for testing are at [1], dist layout is at [2],
generated site can be found at [3]. Tag is [4] which will
Jörg Schaible wrote:
Hi,
Mladen Turk wrote:
Apache Commons Daemon 1.0.15 based on RC1 is ready.
This is bug fix release fixing both bugs and regressions
found in previous release(s).
Binaries and sources for testing are at [1], dist layout is at [2],
generated site can be found at
On 03/30/2013 09:06 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Jörg Schaible wrote:
the manifest of the commons-daemon-1.0.15.jar contains a strange entry:
=== % =
Implementation-Build: UNKNOWN_BRANCH@r??; 2013-03-28 13:53:43+0100
=== % =
This contains normally the
On 30 March 2013 20:50, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
On 03/30/2013 09:06 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Jörg Schaible wrote:
the manifest of the commons-daemon-1.0.15.jar contains a strange entry:
=== % =
Implementation-Build: UNKNOWN_BRANCH@r??; 2013-03-28
On Mar 30, 2013, at 18:48, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 March 2013 20:50, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
On 03/30/2013 09:06 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Jörg Schaible wrote:
the manifest of the commons-daemon-1.0.15.jar contains a strange entry:
=== % =
On 03/30/2013 11:59 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Mar 30, 2013, at 18:48, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 March 2013 20:50, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
On 03/30/2013 09:06 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Jörg Schaible wrote:
the manifest of the commons-daemon-1.0.15.jar contains a
On 28.3.2013 14:12, Mladen Turk wrote:
Apache Commons Daemon 1.0.15 based on RC1 is ready.
This is bug fix release fixing both bugs and regressions
found in previous release(s).
Binaries and sources for testing are at [1], dist layout is at [2],
generated site can be found at [3]. Tag is [4]
+1.
Sites looks ok, Maven build ok, C++ build ok on Windows with these warnings:
cl -c -nologo -DWIN32 -D_WIN32 -D_WINDOWS -D_WINNT
-D_WIN32_WINNT=0x0501 -DWINVER=0x0501 -D_WIN32_IE=0x0600 -W3 -D_CONSOLE
-EHsc -D_UNICODE -DUNICODE -D
_X86_=1 -O2 -Ob2 -Oy- -Zi -DNDEBUG -D_MT -MD
Apache Commons Daemon 1.0.15 based on RC1 is ready.
This is bug fix release fixing both bugs and regressions
found in previous release(s).
Binaries and sources for testing are at [1], dist layout is at [2],
generated site can be found at [3]. Tag is [4] which will be renamed to
Why do we publish the native-src.zip/.tar.gz artifacts in the Maven
repository? That seems to be just a subset of the src.zip/.tar.gz artifacts.
Emmanuel Bourg
Le 28/03/2013 14:12, Mladen Turk a écrit :
Apache Commons Daemon 1.0.15 based on RC1 is ready.
This is bug fix release fixing both
45 matches
Mail list logo
