incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
Date Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:18:10 GMT

On Apr 24, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On Apr 22, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Apr 22, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>
wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 22, 2012, at 12:47 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> You snipped out the important part:
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry, thought you answered your own question there.  But since you
>>>> bring it up, there is no requirement for a DISCLAIMER file. There is
>>>> however a requirement for making the user aware of the incubation
>>>> disclaimer.  See this page, where several options are listed:
>>>> 
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#notes-disclaimer
>>> 
>>> Keep in mind that page is clearly labeled as a "DRAFT".
>>> 
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#status
>>> 
>>> The DISCLAIMER file is certainly in the correct place in the Source distribution.
>> 
>> Well, I was not correct here. It is in the SVN, but fails to make it into any of
the distributions.
>> 
>> I did a MacOSX build, reviewed the NOTICE, LICENSE, rat-exclude and rat output from
a nightly build.
>> 
>> An amazing job was done with the Headers and the RAT report!
>> 
>> Here are my concerns:
>> 
>> (1) DISCLAIMER ought to be included in all packages. We'll have to see if this is
a SHOULD or a MUST.
>> 
> 
> I think we need to make it clear to the user that this is a project
> under incubation.  There are several ways of doing this.  Standalone
> DISCLAIMER is one way.  Adding to README file is another explicitly
> called out in the podling release guide.
> 
>> (2) LICENSE contains copyright statements which ought to be part of the NOTICE file.
Again we'll see if this is a SHOULD or a MUST.
>> 
> 
> Do you have some examples?

From the LICENSE:

For main/i18npool/source/breakiterator/data/*.txt and
    International Components for Unicode - built in main/icu/
- ICU license

This is derived work based on:
ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/software/globalization/icu/3.2/

License of the origin and the derived work:
ICU License - ICU 1.8.1 and later

COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSION NOTICE

Copyright (c) 1995-2003 International Business Machines Corporation and others
All rights reserved.

> As I understand it, unless it is a required notice per the license,
> the only copyrights that go into NOTICE are the ASF copyright and the
> Oracle one which was relocated from the source files when the ALv2
> headers were added.  We're not required to put every copyright
> statement in NOTICE.

Actually I think this is where these copyright notices need to be. There has been discussion
on general@i.a.o and the issue is not clear.

I think we are fine, but I also think that there will be discussion about it on the IPMC portion
of the VOTE.

> 
> 
>> (3) When building from source there was no warning about the inclusion of Category
B? I think that the Building Guide should be edited to more clearly explain the ext_sources
and ext_libraries. I know we have the information. It is more making this clear. Again, I'm
not sure if it a SHOULD or a MUST for a build to pause and get explicit permission to download
category B.
>> 
> 
> If you build with the default build flags, then you get no category B
> code.  If you want category B code then you need to explicitly add
> those command-line build flags.  Maybe the impact of these flags needs
> to be clearer in the Building Guide?

Yes, that would be great.

> 
> I don't think you really want the build system to actually pause and
> wait for human input.  That might complicated the Buildbot....

Somehow it has to be clear to the user when category B is consumed.

Regards,
Dave


> 
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> I think that I answered the question, but I would like to ask our project Mentors
if this will be an issue in IPMC voting. I've seen enough on general@i.a.o to know that it
may be for some and not others.
>>> 
>>> So, while this is not a problem for me, if it is likely IPMC will request an
RC2 over this we should know now.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -Rob
>>>> 
>>>>> The SDK and Binaries are missing the DISCLAIMER file. Is a missing Incubation
DISCLAIMER in a binary package enough to prevent release? I think probably not, but this may
be an edge case. The application pop-ups do mention "Incubation" and every page linked back
to thewww.openoffice.org shows the Disclaimer...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Dave
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message