incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Date Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:06:04 GMT

On Aug 20, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Andre Fischer <> wrote:
>>    [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating)
>>    [ ]  0 Don't care
>>    [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> -1
> I object to the claim that the AOO binaries are officially part of this
> release:
>    We are officially voting on binaries as well and these are being inspected
>    and these will be part of the official release.

I am not surprised at your response, but it is hard and unproductive to argue with Rob.

> The policy I am basing my vote on is section 6.3 of the the ASF bylaws as
> interpreted by Roy Fielding:
>    Each Project Management Committee shall be responsible for the active
>    management of one or more projects identified by resolution of the Board
>    of Directors which may include, without limitation, the creation or
>    maintenance of "open-source" software for distribution to the public at no
>    charge.
>    This issue is not open for discussion. It is is a mandate from the
>    certificate of this foundation -- our agreement with the State of Delaware
>    that I signed as incorporator. It is fundamental to our status as an IRS
>    501(c)3 charity. It is the key charter delegated by the board as part of
>    every TLP resolution: "charged with the creation and maintenance of
>    open-source software ... for distribution at no charge to the public."
>    Class files are not open source. Jar files filled with class files are not
>    open source. The fact that they are derived from open source is applicable
>    only to what we allow projects to be dependent upon, not what we vote on
>    as a release package. Release votes are on verified open source artifacts.
>    Binary packages are separate from source packages. One cannot vote to
>    approve a release containing a mix of source and binary code because the
>    binary is not open source and cannot be verified to be safe for release
>    (even if it was derived from open source).
>    I thought that was frigging obvious. Why do I need to write documentation
>    to explain something that is fundamental to the open source definition?
> I intend to withdraw my -1 on clarification from those IPMC members
> casting +1 binding votes that this release VOTE is limited to the source
> release.

My IPMC VOTE was done entirely by inspecting / unpacking the source release and building a
MacOSX distro entirely from source. The package started fine.

Comparisons to SVN and a RAT scan via the buildbot was accomplished. rat-excludes file has
not been changed since before the prior 3.4.0 release, but please look at it to see if there
is anything in there that is troublesome - there are some "binary" files but they are in example
and test directories. Perhaps there are edge cases, but it is typical to have examples and
unit tests that include binaries in other projects.

There are some wildcard excludes that may be better as specific.

I recommend that you do any RAT scan on Linux as there is trouble of some kind on MacOSX and

Let us know if you think that this is beyond "cups" and "saucers" level.

I did not consider the binary packages for multiple platforms and languages at all in my VOTE.


> Marvin Humphrey
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message