incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the graduation process)
Date Thu, 31 May 2012 12:51:06 GMT
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Pedro Giffuni <> wrote:
> --- Mer 30/5/12, Rob Weir <> ha scritto:
>> >
>> > So *NOW* you are admitting that those tarballs are
>> part
>> > of the Release??
>> >
>> Not at all.  But they are referenced from build
>> files.  I hope this distinction is clear.
> No. If they are just referenced then we don't depend
> on having them there: we just have to replace the
> reference. A nice text file mentioning where to find
> them (ooo-exttas @ Apache Extras) *is* a reference.
>> Again, go back to the licensing page and the principles
>> stated there. This is not a crusade to eradicate
>> category-b code from the face of the earth.
> I didn'r say I am eradicating anything (yet), they just can't
> be in SVN.
>   This is about making it clear to downstream
>> consumers what
>> the dependencies are, what obligations those dependencies
>> bring, and
>> to require an explicit, informed decision for the downstream
>> developer
>> to enable the use of category-b binaries.    We
>> are doing all of that.
>> > We don't have permission from legal@ to ship
>> Category-B
>> > sources .. that must be fixed .. with axe.
>> >
>> Put the axe away, Pedro.   As you know,
>> category-b code is not
>> included in the release.  We already went through the
>> audit on that.
> There was no audit. Mr RAT never examined those and we
> discussed this was a temporary situation.
>> In case it is not clear, I'll veto any attempt by you to
>> break the 3.4 source distributions.
> You mean source distribution (tarballs) don't build on
> their own and depend on what we carry in SVN? Sounds
> like something is wrong.
> Well ... those files are not required by default for
> the build, they are only optionally used and we did it
> on purpose so as long as we make a small adjustment in
> the buildbots I don't see what you can veto about it.
> And while you are so brave about vetoing hypothetical
> issues ... I already axed a couple of tarballs from the
> old Apache commons and Lucene. Have fun putting them
> back :-P.

Just to be clear,  I am not objecting to you relocating the category-b
tarballs.  I'm objecting to doing this in a way that breaks the AOO
3.4.0 release.

Remember, we have had many downloads of the AOO 3.4 source
distribution.  Not the least of the users is the LibreOffice project,
which has already declared that they are rebasing on that release.  Do
we really want to break them?

So instead of a an axe, let's try a scalpel.  The ext_sources tree was
branched along with the rest of the the AOO 3.4 tree.  So you should
be able to safely work on the branch, defining the external
dependencies there.  This could be done without touching the trunk and
without breaking the 3.4.0 release.  Then, after 3.4.1 is released, we
can bring those changes to the trunk.

Does that make sense?  We don't break our release distributions until
we have a working replacement in the form of 3.4.1.  If that means we
delay graduation until 3.4.1, then so be it.


> Pedro.

View raw message