lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shad Storhaug <>
Subject RE: Release
Date Wed, 26 Apr 2017 14:30:38 GMT
Looks like the build is now broken, but it is working for me here locally. The server is printing
out the SDK version 1.0.3, when it should be 1.0.0-preview2-1-003177. I added a separate build,
checked out the same source, and just ran dotnet.exe --version and got 1.0.0-preview2-003133.
Is there any way to tell if the server has had .NET Core SDKs installed or uninstalled recently?

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Bodewig [] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: Release

On 2017-04-26, Shad Storhaug wrote:

> Those files did come from the OpenJDK (which I figured was "open" - I 
> guess not).

"open" and "free" have so different meanings to different people :-)

The GPL contains requirements on top of what is required by the Apache Software License (and
the opposite is also true, at least for GPLv2). An ASF release is supposed to mean "there
won't be any obligations beyond what the Apache Software License asks for". That's why the
license compatibility list exists.

> The ByteBuffer from Harmony at first glance looks identical to the JDK 
> except for the license,

It's not unlikely OpenJDK used the one from Harmony, but I don't want to speculate. In either
case, Harmony should be a safe origin for us.

A big thank you for looking into this.

> The main problem was - no tests.

I'm not really familiar with the Harmony code base but you may be able to find tests in there
as well.

>> The signatures and md5 hashes work for me, but I'm not sure which sha 
>> hash you are using. Based on its length it could be SHA512 but then 
>> the hashes don't match for me (using sha512sum on Linux).

> Hmm - I used SHA512. Here are the commands I used.

My fault, I must have been checksumming the wrong file, all is good.

Many thanks


View raw message