incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <>
Subject Re: Clarification on treatment of "weak copyleft" components
Date Sun, 23 Oct 2011 13:56:28 GMT
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:


>>> There is no intent to hoard.  From talking to developers on this
>>> project I get the sense that they want to upstream patches more than
>>> was done previously.  But contributing a patch is no guarantee that it
>>> will be integrated by the other project in a timely manner.  Simply
>>> having it checked in by the 3rd party component, but not yet in their
>>> release, is also not optimal, for stability and supportability
>>> reasons.  Release schedules don't always sync up.
>> Downstream packagers face similar issues and typically cope by
>> maintaining independent patch sets (applied at build time). Why not
>> just use patch sets?
> That is what we do.  We store the original source in a tarball and
> then apply a patch at build time.  But we store both the source
> tarball and the patch on our servers.

Dependency managers frequently used elsewhere at Apache[1] typically
use meta-data to describe dependencies for location. Does the current
build system work in a similar way?


[1] eg and

View raw message