Looks like 5.1 release process will start soon - should we remove this .jar
before the release? I see there's some progress on TIKA-1581, but it
doesn't look like it's going to be resolved that soon.
Shai
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect that the
Yes, I've been monitoring that issue. So once TIKA-1581 is resolved we can
upgrade to the newer Tika version together with the proper jhighlight
package. If that happens before 5.1 is out, all the better.
Shai
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:32 AM, Karl Wright daddy...@gmail.com wrote:
The
We should remove it. It would not be a good thing to knowingly release
incompatible code. Then, upgrade to the latest Tika when we can.
Upayavira
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 04:41 PM, Steve Rowe wrote:
+1 to remove.
On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:43 AM, Shai Erera ser...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks
+1 to remove.
On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:43 AM, Shai Erera ser...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like 5.1 release process will start soon - should we remove this .jar
before the release? I see there's some progress on TIKA-1581, but it doesn't
look like it's going to be resolved that soon.
Shai
OK I opened SOLR-7317.
Shai
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
We should remove it. It would not be a good thing to knowingly release
incompatible code. Then, upgrade to the latest Tika when we can.
Upayavira
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 04:41 PM, Steve Rowe
The jhighlight people just released a 1.0.2 jar which fixes the problem.
It has a different path in Maven, but otherwise it is compatible. See:
https://github.com/codelibs/jhighlight/issues/4
Karl
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Shai Erera ser...@gmail.com wrote:
OK I opened SOLR-7317.
You are right -both projects need to remove it, although it might be
easier to work with Tika to fix that and then upgrade again.
Upayavira
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 05:26 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
Sorry for the spam, just wanted to note that this dependency was added by
Steve in SOLR-6130 to
I have created a ticket: TIKA-1581. ManifoldCF also has a Tika dependency,
so thank you for noting the problem.
Karl
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
You are right -both projects need to remove it, although it might be
easier to work with Tika to fix that
I suspect that the classes in question are in fact *not* used by Tika in
any capacity, but they are in the jar nonetheless. So one solution would
be to simply repackage the jar. I'd like to see what the Tika team says.
Karl
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Shai Erera ser...@gmail.com wrote:
although it might be easier to work with Tika to fix that and then upgrade
again.
If jhighlight was brought into Solr distribution as a transitive dependency
then you're right, but since we pull it in explicitly (even if for runtime
purposes only), I think we should remove it, whether Tika
Hi
Solr's contrib/extraction contains jhighlight-1.0.jar which declares itself
as dual CDDL or LGPL license. However, some of its classes are distributed
only under LGPL, e.g.
com.uwyn.jhighlight.highlighter.
CppHighlighter.java
GroovyHighlighter.java
JavaHighlighter.java
Sorry for the spam, just wanted to note that this dependency was added by
Steve in SOLR-6130 to resolve improper Tika 1.4-1.5 upgrade.
The core issue lies with Tika IMO (they shouldn't rely on LGPL code too I
believe), but I am not sure if it's OK that we distribute this .jar
ourselves.
Shai
On
One update, I did find this dependency is explicitly set in
solr/contrib/extraction/ivy.xml, under the Tika dependencies section:
!-- Tika dependencies - see
http://tika.apache.org/1.3/gettingstarted.html#Using_Tika_as_a_Maven_dependency
--
!-- When upgrading Tika, upgrade dependencies
13 matches
Mail list logo
