incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Request for an early review of an potential Apache OpenOffice release
Date Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:35:26 GMT
On 3/28/12 12:46 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> 2012/3/26 Jürgen Schmidt<jogischmidt@googlemail.com>:
>> I created and used an ant script (main/solenv/bin/srcrelease.xml) to create
>> the src release files as part of the normal build if required. I decided to
>> use ant because it allows me some flexibility...
>>
>> Our trunk contains 4 directories where trunk/ext_sources shouldn't be
>> included in a src release because it contains external library packages for
>> convenient purposes only. We have to patch some external libs for example
>> where an upstreaming is not possible or where the versions we use are too
>> old. That is something we would like to improve in the future and over time.
>> But they will be downloaded on demand.
>
> OK, I think that sounds right.
>
>> trunk/main
>> trunk/ext_libraries
>> trunk/ext_sources
>> trunk/extras
>>
>> That means I include main, ext_libraries and extras only. ext_libraries is a
>> new module where we started to collect build projects for external libs in
>> our own office specific build env etc. Main purpose is to have a cleaner
>> separation over time.
>>
>> trunk/main/NOTICE and trunk/main/LICENSE and trunk/main/README are moved in
>> the destination root directory of our src release to simply have it in the
>> root as expected.
>>
>> We kept trunk clean so far or better we don't put any files in trunk
>> directly and used main as the main source directory. extras contains
>> translation files only to keep them somewhat separated as well.
>
> I had a brief glance at srcrelease.xml, and between that and your description
> of how the system has been set up, I'm content that you understand the
> requirements and are making a good-faith effort to uphold them.
>
>>> Canonical ASF source releases are supposed to be assembled using a
>>> repeatable build process.
>>
>>
>> I think it is very repeatable and the script used is part of the source as
>> well.
>
> Excellent.
>
>> see my description above, anybody can build the src release no local setup
>> necessary.
>>
>> It is more or less a pure svn dump.
>
> Right -- just with a few files moved around and a bunch filtered out.

yes, we build the src release package as part of a normal build and I 
exclude all svn fiels  + generated files during the build.

>
>> We run RAT on our build bots (at least on one) and use the exclude list that
>> you can find in trunk/main/rat-excludes
>>
>> You can find the nightly output under
>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/rat-output.html
>>
>> Right now we have still 1471 files with unknown license but they are more or
>> less all part of the SGA or should be.
>>
>> We are working right now on these files and analyze if it's possible to
>> include a license header or not. OR put in in the exclude file with a proper
>> comment to document everything.
>
> Nice workflow, +1.
>
> I had a look at the rat-excludes file.  The individual files which are listed
> and documented in the lower half -- that all looks great.
>
> The top half, though, has an awful lot of wildcards:
>
>      **/*.add
>      **/*.all
>      **/*.am
>      **/*.applications
>      **/*.attr
>      **/*.btm
>      **/*.cgm
>      **/*.chd
>      **/*.cl
>      **/*.cls
>      **/*.cmn
>      **/*.common
>      **/*.component
>      **/*.components
>      [...]
>
>      # binary media formats
>      **/*.bmp
>      **/*.emf
>      **/*.eps
>      **/*.gif
>      **/*.giff
>      **/*.icns
>      **/*.ico
>      **/*.img
>      **/*.jpeg
>      **/*.jpg
>      **/*.mov
>      [...]
>
>      # binary document formats
>      **/*.doc
>      **/*.docx
>      **/*.odb
>      **/*.odf
>      **/*.odg
>      **/*.odl
>      [...]
>
> I understand that a lot of those filetypes can't have embedded licenses.
> Ideally, each such file would be listed together with a comment explaining its
> licensing situation.  Less desirable but still acceptable to list wildcards
> within directories, explaining where e.g. all the images in
> this/folder/full/of/*.jpeg files came from.  Having wildcards which exclude a
> file type for the whole source tree, though, weakens the RAT check, both now
> and in the future.
>
> Are you confident that all the files which match those wildcards were part of
> the Oracle SGA or are otherwise properly licensed for ASF usage?

yes I think so, the rat exclude list is maintained mainly from somebody 
who should know what's part of the SGA

Juergen

>
> Thanks,
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message