commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rahul Akolkar" <>
Subject Re: [transaction] Commons Transaction 1.2 rc3 ready for inspection
Date Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:55:23 GMT
On 7/31/06, Joerg Heinicke <> wrote:
> Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar <at>> writes:
> >
> > I'm not in favor of distributing deps along with Commons libraries'
> > distributions.
> >
> >  * Its straightforward to provide an ant target to download the deps.
> In contrast to this I prefer to deliver the dependencies as well. There are
> rumours about companies that don't provide direct access to the internet from
> the employee's PCs, but only via a terminal server (Unfortunately, I'm working
> for such a company). The problem is simply that those people can't use such
> download tasks or Maven. If you don't deliver the dependencies they have to run
> after each single jar. Even for Apache Cocoon (which has a huge list of
> dependencies) we will provide a distribution including the dependencies.

Yes, it is more effort for the end user (to download the deps
individually), but I remain unconvinced this is the right way to
proceed for Commons libraries (I'm aware a lot of frameworks do such a

> >  * Distribution of (potentially) 3rd party binaries (as an example,
> > JUnit, in this case) means we have to understand their licenses (by
> > refering to the ASF legal docs), determine reciprocity requirements as
> > needed etc. No bang for the buck here.
> It has worked for years. Why shouldn't it work further on?

This is not about their use, rather their distribution in our release
distros. Atleast I haven't seen such a modus operandi in the RCs I've
looked at recently. Going one step ahead, it'd be nice IMO, if the lib
directory in the [transaction] SVN repository also disappeared.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message