incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From eric b <>
Subject dependencies at runtime. was: Re: OO/LO License + Why LO needs the AFL 2.0 to exist (quickly)
Date Sun, 05 Jun 2011 08:09:10 GMT

First over all, I'm not a native speaker, but I think I can answer.

Apologies if I'm off topic, this thread is extremely difficult to  

Le 5 juin 11 à 09:41, Dennis E. Hamilton a écrit :

> I was thinking about binary-only components such as a linker  
> library or shared library that was under a non-Apache license but  
> that needed to be included in deployments of

As builder / dev since years in OOo, we separated

- build dependencies : the builder MUST install something to make the  
build possible.
- install dependencies : the user must install something to be sure will launch and work correctly

I suppose we are talking about the second one.

If in this case, and if this can be helpfull for you, the policy for  
external code was handled by external project -> http://
Martin Hollmichel (Sun / Oracle employee the last time I've heard of)  
is IMHO the one to be contated for further information.

Back to install time now. More basicaly, we currently have :

1) Windows

Windows build, is provided as a set, auto-installable : no need to  
link to anything else, the set is linked to system dll only.

Nothing must be installed so far, excepted Java, but Java missing is  
not an issue.

Please somebody correct me if Im wrong.

2) Mac OS X

Since we removed as much as possible to any dependencies (I was one  
of the actor of this cleanup), the set is currently provided as disk  
image, containing everything.

Java is the one shipped on the system, and if ever Java is not  
installed, will work anyway (some features missing only).

3) Linux

It is very easy to provide a standalone product, without the need to  
use other system binaries, and I confirm this is possible. The facts  
are different : to avoid as much as possible to have the same libs/ 
binaries in the installed set (avoiding twice installation of the  
same dependencies), it is common to link wiht system libraries and  
binaries at buildtime, considering the user will have to install the  
dependency himself.  This is the same for a lot of applications on  
Debian, e.g. and make the full installation lighter.

Please not this is true for a majority of Linux's but there could be  
one excpetion I'm not aware.

4) FreeBSD and OpenBSD do the same (I wrote a ports makefile for  
OpenBSD, and things are similar)

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

5) Solaris

I don't know

> That would require a different version of the binary-only component  
> for every platform environment the Apache code is expected to build  
> for and deploy to.

I don't think this is mandatory at all, but I can be wrong.

> Since code is mostly C++ and the trend is to remove  
> the Java dependencies (at least over on LibreOffice), this seems  
> more awkward than whatever the benefit might be.

I already removed all Java dependencies in OOo4Kids and OOoLight in for all ports, and that's not a problem.

> I need to step back and look at this more carefully.  My starting- 
> out assumptions are that builds don't depend on  
> binary-only components in deployed distributions.

I think so too, but I agree a clear choice must be made very soon.

>   In addition, I'm trusting that any dependencies on third-party  
> source code or binary libraries are either non-toxic, can be worked- 
> around/done-without for as long as we'd need to have an alternative  
> in place.  Whistling in the dark here ...

Hope my mail will help you.

Eric Bachard

Education Project:
Projet OOo4Kids :
L'association EducOOo :
Blog :

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message