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: External libraries
Date Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:45:46 GMT
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org> wrote:
>
> --- Gio 12/1/12, Andre Fischer <af@a-w-f.de> ha scritto:
> ...
>> >
>> > What is the difference then between ext_sources and
>> > ext_libraries?
>> > How do you decide which goes where?
>>
>> ext_sources contains (and will contain) the source code
>> archives.
>>
>
> I hate to make developer's life difficult but, from
> what is known, no Apache Project seems to be carrying
> Category B software in their repositories (feel free
> to prove me wrong). Not that it's a new problem, just
> something we will have to think about.
>

It is a service to downstream consumers.  Just as we aggregate
licenses and notices to make it easier for them, we also aggregate the
optional category-b code tarballs.

Also, the MPL license requires that we make our modified files
available electronically for 12 months.  But we cannot guarantee that
external hosts for the code will be around for 12 months. OpenOffice
has shown itself to be longer-lived and more stable than many of our
dependencies.

So I don't see a problem here, so long as we:

1) Do not include category-b code in our source packages

2) Do segregate the category-b tarballs in a way that makes it clear
they are special and will not accidentally be mixed in with the ALv2
source

3) Do maintain the LICENSE and NOTICE files so they remain accurate

>> ext_libraries will contain our makefiles and patches that
>> unpack the archives from ext_sources, configure, build,
>> and finally deliver them.
>
> I am OK with this, as long as I can use my prepackaged
> version by defining it configure (FWIW, I already
> updated the FreeBSD package).
>
> Regards,
>
> Pedro.
>

Mime
View raw message