incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)
Date Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:28:40 GMT
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Ross Gardler
<rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Jan 13, 2012 4:02 PM, "Andre Fischer" <af@a-w-f.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13.01.2012 16:25, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>
>>> For what it is worth, I agree with Joe here. The question is whether
> there
>>> is a valid reason to keep them here.
>>
>>
>> I don't know if the reasons are valid.  We are trying to find a
> pragmatical solution that is a good compromise for the different
> requirements of the ASF, the OpenOffice developers/community, and the
> OpenOffice users:
>>
>> - For the ASF we use no code under category X license and try to use as
> little code under category B license.
>>
>> - For the users we want to retain as many features as possible.
>>
>> - For the developers we want to make development as accessible as
> possible.
>>
>
> Why is it necessary to include source rather than just binaries?
>

With C/C++ code, binaries are built from source, and the source has to
come from somewhere.  If there is a need to fix a security problem, we
need ready access to the source.  The binaries alone would not be
sufficient.

Also look at this from the perspective of a downstream consumer who is
porting the product to another platform.  The binaries would be of
zero use to them,since the binaries would not be compiled for their
platform.  But having the source archives for the dependencies readily
available, that is exactly what a porter would need.


> Ross

Mime
View raw message