Hi David, One doubt, while building cloudstack we are using "mysql-connector-java version 5.1.29"; is it not mandatory we should supposed to use same version of mysql-connector during run time?
Regards, Rayees -----Original Message----- From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 7:59 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Policy blocker? Hi folks: I think this issue is resolved in the 4.3 branch. The default build system no longer seems to grab the mysql jar, and I've adjusted tomcat to load the mysql jar from the system library. Commit 0c2ad0338e34f6117cecc24ec00c7746dd481465 should have the necessary changes. I did some quick testing, and this seems to work, but obviously it needs more eyes and testing. --David On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:37 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I cringe to raise this issue. After 6 RCs I am sure we are all feeling > a little bit of release vote fatigue. Especially Animesh. I apologize > in advance; in all other respects I am ready to give a +1 to RC6. > > I've been playing with 4.3.0-rc6 for a couple of days now. I attempted > to build some RPMs and had problems with dependency resolution in > maven. This led me to looking at a number of different poms, and I > noticed mysql-connector-java is listed as a runtime dependency. For > our end users, this really isn't necessary - the debs and rpms specify > a requirement (effectively a system requirement in the terms of > policy) for mysql-connector-java. We don't need it to build the > software (at least not in any location I've seen) - just when running. > (And thus its a system dependency, much like MySQL is.) > > mysql-connector-java is GPLv2; which is Cat X. By including it as a > dependency in the pom it automatically gets downloaded. The 3rd Party > software policy has this line in it: > > "YOU MUST NOT distribute build scripts or documentation within an > Apache product with the purpose of causing the default/standard build > of an Apache product to include any part of aprohibited work." > > We've released software with this dependency previously. Is this a > blocker for 4.3 or do we fix going forward? (If we hadn't already > shipped releases with this problem I'd lean a bit more towards it > being a blocker - but its more murky now.) > > Thoughts, comments, flames? > > --David > > [1] https://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
