Emma is only used with junit to generate code coverage reports, so I guess we don't need it for binary release as well.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Michael MacFadden < [email protected]> wrote: > Benson, > > I agree. There was some progress in mavenizing the build. I suspect that > that solution will take some time. The build process is somewhat > complicated at the moment, if this is the long term solution, we may need > to do something simpler to start off with. > > In the case of Junit, we should probably be able to remove it from a > binary release. There is no reason to include it in my mind since it's > only used during the build. Not sure on emma. Regardless a temporary > work around would be to remove them and simply required the users to > download them. We could even provide a simple script to do that. > > ~Michael > > > > On 12/3/12 3:45 PM, "Benson Margulies" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Michael MacFadden > ><[email protected]> wrote: > >> Benson, > >> > >> Yes, Angus had been working this issue for us and found a few third > >>party > >> Jars. Here is an extract from his email: > >> > >> ---------- > >> There's a couple of things going on at once at the moment: > >> -i'm in contact with the libIDN author, who is happy to release the > >> software under the Apache license, which means we can keep using that > >>once > >> a new release comes out > >> -the other two libraries junit and emma both think the best option is to > >> obfuscate the code somehow like ant, if anyone has any experience in > >>doing > >> it speaking up would be greatly appreciated > >> ----------- > >> > >> > >> Apparently, there is some precedent for obfuscating third party jars. > >>My > >> assumption is that something about the license views distributing Java > >> jars as being akin to a source distribution do to the ease of > >> decompilation. > > > >I cannot think of any reason why any Apache project should be > >concerned with obfuscation or decompilation. We are open source, and > >our dependencies are open source. Junit is a testing tool, so you > >should never need to redistribute it, just arrange to have it > >available for builds, and maven or ant/ivy will do that, and the same > >with emma, which is another development tool. > > > >There are many examples of this at other project. If it would be > >helpful, I could join the dev list to help with the discussion here. > > > > > > > >> > >> Angus, > >> > >> Can you she some light on this? > >> > >> ~Michael > >> > >> On 12/3/12 12:54 PM, "Benson Margulies" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>>Dear Wave, > >>> > >>>I don't understand the remark in your report about the need to > >>>'obfuscate' third party jar files. Could you please elaborate? Do you > >>>have problems with dependencies with incompatible licenses, or > >>>something else? > >>> > >>>Thanks, > >>>Benson > >>> > >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >
