incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rajesh Battala <>
Subject RE: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.0.0-incubating Release, third round
Date Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:55:29 GMT
Verified Basic VM Operations using Dev Cloud on VB.

Rajesh Battala

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Kulp [] 
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Cloudstack 4.0.0-incubating Release, third round

On Oct 25, 2012, at 9:08 AM, Brett Porter <> wrote:

> On 25/10/2012, at 5:11 AM, Chip Childers <> wrote:
>> Yes, the jars referenced in the legal docs are pulled in by the 
>> packaging process.  The expectation was that the material would be 
>> brought into any packaging (including the non-asf, but community 
>> provided, deb/rpm's).  When looking for examples from other ASF 
>> projects, IIRC I saw both approaches (I'll have to dig a bit to find 
>> the examples that I was looking at).  At one point, I had a "*_BINARY"
>> version of both files and the standard files for the source itself, 
>> but I then decided to simplify into a single set that would work for 
>> both situations.
>> So I guess the question is this: is this an acceptable approach or not?
> I don't see a problem with this - someone building the source is going to have to accept
the licenses of those non-optional dependencies too since they'll get dragged down automatically.
Perhaps the files could have a separator indicating the following apply only to binaries built
from the sources in future releases?

Yep.  I agree with this.   Nothing to hold up this release, but a bit of room for improvement
for the next release.   :-)

Anyway, other than the above, everything looks fine to me.   So here is my +1.

Daniel Kulp - Talend Community Coder -

View raw message