Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4EC61A8F.500@a-w-f.de>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:42:55 +0100
From: Andre Fischer <af@a-w-f.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Draft IP Review Plan for OpenOffice
References: 
 <CAP-ksogUv9ig9Htp_Et=7XKhFFm5FP6pGThcAAR4uLJHu0iBjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <4EC563E7.4000601@cfl.rr.com> <017b01cca567$d03105f0$709311d0$@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <017b01cca567$d03105f0$709311d0$@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 17.11.2011 21:30, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I had thought that category X artifacts needed to accomplish a build would be excluded from the release but identified as prerequisites for the build.  They would never be distributed in the Apache OpenOffice release.  (I am becoming rapidly accustomed to using that name.)
>
> Some become downloaded by build procedures in order to be used, but they are never in the release itself.  (Whether an ASF-hosted buildbot does such a thing is interesting but tangential, I think.)
>
> There are some odd cases of abandonware having no authoritative location for downloading and also having OpenOffice.org-applied patches.  I think dmake is one of those.  I have no idea how that ends up but I think it means dmake disappears as a build prerequisite.

I am currently working on removing the dmake sources.  There is another 
thread about this, but you can also have look at issue 118604 for the 
techincal details.  The basic idea is to use a pre-installed dmake 
executable by default.  However, the user can provide a URL for a 
downloadable tar-ball, which then is downloaded and built in bootstrap.

-Andre

>
> Another case would be redistributables (e.g., a particular JRE version or Microsoft Visual C++ redistributables) that may end up in a binary distribution.  This is a different situation, even though there can also be build-time prerequisites (e.g., on a JDK or Visual C++) as well as dependencies in the built binary distribution.
>
> TJ, do you see any other flavors, or have any other specific cases in mind.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TJ Frazier [mailto:tjfrazier@cfl.rr.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 11:44
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Draft IP Review Plan for OpenOffice
>
> On 11/17/2011 14:16, Rob Weir wrote:
> [ ... ]
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/IP+Plan+for+Apache+OpenOffice
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
> Good job, and much needed.
> Comments:
> (a) For item #4 under "Guidance for Source Releases", I suggest:
>
> s/This/Producing a copy-left-free binary/
>
> (b) Some further explanation of the situation regarding class-X-licensed
> build components would be helpful. In order to build, AFAIK, we need all
> sorts of things, like dmake, epm, gcc,&c. These have to be present or
> downloaded, true?