lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shad Storhaug <s...@shadstorhaug.com>
Subject RE: Release
Date Thu, 27 Apr 2017 02:01:48 GMT
Connie,

You are a lifesaver. That script was exactly what was needed to remotely install the SDK.
I added a version check to avoid running it if the version already exists.

[04:46:29][Step 1/1] Executing Init
[04:46:29][Step 1/1] C:\Program Files\dotnet\dotnet.exe
[04:46:30][Step 1/1] Current SDK version: 1.0.0-preview2-003133
[04:46:30][Step 1/1] Require SDK version 1.0.0-preview2-1-003177, installing...
[04:46:31][Step 1/1] dotnet-install: Downloading https://dotnetcli.azureedge.net/dotnet/Sdk/1.0.0-preview2-1-003177/dotnet-dev-win-x64.1.0.0-preview2-1-003177.zip
[04:46:37][Step 1/1] dotnet-install: Extracting zip from https://dotnetcli.azureedge.net/dotnet/Sdk/1.0.0-preview2-1-003177/dotnet-dev-win-x64.1.0.0-preview2-1-003177.zip
[04:46:44][Step 1/1] dotnet-install: Adding to current process PATH: "C:\Users\builduser\AppData\Local\Microsoft\dotnet\".
Note: This change will not be visible if PowerShell was run as a child process.
[04:46:44][Step 1/1] dotnet-install: Installation finished
[04:46:44][Step 1/1] C:\Users\builduser\AppData\Local\Microsoft\dotnet\dotnet.exe
[04:46:45][Step 1/1] C:\Program Files\dotnet\dotnet.exe
[04:46:45][Step 1/1] ##myget[buildNumber '4.8.0-ci0000001069']
[04:46:46][Step 1/1] 1.0.0-preview2-1-003177
[04:46:46][Step 1/1] Base Directory: C:\BuildAgent\work\b1b63ca15b99dddb
[04:46:46][Step 1/1] Release Directory: C:\BuildAgent\work\b1b63ca15b99dddb\release
[04:46:46][Step 1/1] Source Directory: C:\BuildAgent\work\b1b63ca15b99dddb
[04:46:46][Step 1/1] Tools Directory: C:\BuildAgent\work\b1b63ca15b99dddb\lib
[04:46:46][Step 1/1] NuGet Package Directory: C:\BuildAgent\work\b1b63ca15b99dddb\release\NuGetPackages
[04:46:46][Step 1/1] BuildCounter: 1069
[04:46:46][Step 1/1] PreReleaseCounterPattern: 0000000000
[04:46:46][Step 1/1] VersionSuffix: ci
[04:46:46][Step 1/1] Package Version: 4.8.0-ci0000001069
[04:46:46][Step 1/1] Version: 4.8.0
[04:46:46][Step 1/1] Configuration: Release

Thanks,
Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)

-----Original Message-----
From: Connie Yau [mailto:conniey@microsoft.com.INVALID] 
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 4:25 AM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: RE: Release

By default, the .NET SDK gets installed into %LOCALAPPDATA%/.dotnet or $HOME/.dotnet on unix
systems.  You could check there? Also, you could check the %PATH% variable to see if it was
not removed from the PATH.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/articles/core/tools/dotnet-install-script

Cheers,
Connie


-----Original Message-----
From: Shad Storhaug [mailto:shad@shadstorhaug.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 7:31 AM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: RE: Release

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 [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 8:12 PM
To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org
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

     Stefan

Mime
View raw message