incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffu...@tutopia.com>
Subject Re: ooo-dmake now at Google Code
Date Mon, 26 Sep 2011 01:50:26 GMT

--- On Sun, 9/25/11, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
...
> 
> Why exactly do we need to move dmake?
> 
> Having copyleft build tools is not necessarily a problem,
> especially if the code is not included in the release.

If you don't include it in the release, how are people
going to build OpenOffice?

> Remember, when we build on Linux we use many GNU utilities.   I
> don't see anything wrong with just leaving Dmake where it was.
> 

I don't see the source code for GNUmake, gcc, or epm in the
repository. We can use GNU stuff but we just can't carry it.


> > http://code.google.com/p/ooo-dmake/
> >
> > Why Google Code and not apache-extras you might
> > wonder: Dmake is something that is unlikely to
> > be transferred to Apache and it's a tool that
> > both AOOo and LibreO are interested in getting
> > rid of. Adding it to apache-extras would've
> > given that impression that dmake somehow had a
> > future in Apache ;).
> >
> 
> Hosting at Apache-Extra does not imply something "has a
> future in Apache".  Its purpose is specifically for
> things that cannot come to Apache. We have the incubation
> process for bringing code (and communities) to Apache.

There is no Dmake community coming to Apache. Dmake is
going out sooner or later, and having it in apache-extras
won't help it.

> And we have an Apache Labs for starting new
> code bases, pre-incubation.  But Apache-Extras is
> for:
>

... 
> 
> See:  http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/faq.html
> 

Quite honestly I don't see any problem why it can't be in
Google Code instead. If someone else want's to maintain it
in apache-extras instead I won't object, just let me know
and I'll remove it.

> 
> I'm not seeing the benefit here.
> 
> We currently have a dependency on a build tool that any
> committer can modify and improve, or fix bugs in.
>
 
The only planned improvement is to remove it. I don't
think it's acceptable to depend in any way on a hacked
copyleft utility.


> This is replaced by having the same tool in an external
> repository that only one committer has rights to modify.
> 

Really? It seems like I am the only one interested in doing
something with it and I am not a committer. If anyone
(committer or not) wants access I'll be glad to add them:
just send me email addresses.

> 
> What am I missing?   I'm not saying you are wrong to do
> this.  I'm just saying that I don't see why this is a good
> thing.
>

For me it's quite obvious. If you really think 3.4 can be
released with that copylefted monster in the tree go ahead.
I will keep using the tarball in the Google Code because an 
independent dmake package is already a dependency to build
LibreOffice on FreeBSD and some versions of linux.

Pedro.

Mime
View raw message