incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Shahaf <...@daniel.shahaf.name>
Subject Re: Category B licenses
Date Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:59:09 GMT
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:53:43 +0100:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 22:24:07 +0100:
> >> Conventionally at Apache, the "source release" is canonical and is
> >> identical to the tagged source in version control.
> >
> > FWIW, at Subversion the tagged release and the tarball differ by some
> > autogenerated files.  ('configure' and SWIG headers are present in the
> > tarball but need to be generated when building from the tag)
> 
> Yep :-)
> 
> > I've seen the same discrepancy in build procedure (from svn v. from
> > tarball) elsewhere.
> 
> "source release" and "binary release" are just names which allow us to
> agree rules and conventions and to express distinctions and
> similarities.
> 
> Including resources generated by some process from source means that
> the rules for "binary releases" apply, not "source release". This is
> useful but confusing and often needs explanation (patches for
> documentation gratefully accepted over at legal-discuss).
> 

Don't call them "binary" releases then, call them "Releases that include
files that were machine-generated from other files"?

(doing some acrobatics to account for projects that, say, add their
generated 'configure' files to revision control)

> Using other words, including resources under some licenses in an
> aggregate "binary release" shipped is fine but these shouldn't be in
> version control when the "source release" is cut.
> 
> Robert

Mime
View raw message