gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <>
Subject Re: installed package vs jar in CVS
Date Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:36:34 GMT
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Leo Simons <> wrote:
>>Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>>>Otherwise I'd probably prefer an "installed" package which is not
>>>easy to do for you without access to the live servers.
>>workflow issue!
> More than that.  Think of the click-through licenses and all that, it
> may be illegal to distribute installed packages in an automated way.
> I'm not sure, though.

been thinking about that. You can only distribute the sun packages as 
part of a larger work IIRC. If we create a really big gump tarball that 
we move around, they're part of the larger work. And if we put the 
materials for the gump tarball in a private svn module...that's half of 
the issue solved.

Need to ask Geir, probably.

Anyways, its not like spice-classman has a click-through license. The 
primary reason to have installed packages at all are that license IIUC. 
For everything else, we want everyone to be able to "install packages", 
which we have, throug the use of <jar/> without <ant/>. But that's not a 
clean way to manage things. It doesn't show that the project is not 
being built hence the dependency is "tainted".

> Right now I have a set of shell scripts that has grown over time that
> helps me deploy new packages,

workflow issue! (as in, I don't have the scripts :D)

if gump is to grow big(ger), it needs to be easier for people to help 
out in "gumpmeistering".


- Leo Simons

Weblog              --
Component Community --
Component Glue      --
"We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but
  people wouldn't obey the rules."
                                                         -- Alan Bennett

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

View raw message