Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <1338428718.42092.YahooMailClassic@web113506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 18:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org>
Reply-To: pfg@apache.org
Subject: Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the
 graduation process)
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksojtrmH9DXOi2-BOy5JXmx1TV-ifqvXOKmbTjQmXAgaytg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=0A=0A--- Mer 30/5/12, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> ha scritto:=0A=0A> >=
=0A> > So *NOW* you are admitting that those tarballs are=0A> part=0A> > of=
 the Release??=0A> >=0A> =0A> Not at all.=A0 But they are referenced from b=
uild=0A> files.=A0 I hope this distinction is clear.=0A=0ANo. If they are j=
ust referenced then we don't depend=0Aon having them there: we just have to=
 replace the=0Areference. A nice text file mentioning where to find=0Athem =
(ooo-exttas @ Apache Extras) *is* a reference.=0A=0A =0A> Again, go back to=
 the licensing page and the principles=0A> stated there. This is not a crus=
ade to eradicate=0A> category-b code from the face of the earth.=0A=0AI did=
n'r say I am eradicating anything (yet), they just can't=0Abe in SVN.=0A=0A=
=A0 This is about making it clear to downstream=0A> consumers what=0A> the =
dependencies are, what obligations those dependencies=0A> bring, and=0A> to=
 require an explicit, informed decision for the downstream=0A> developer=0A=
> to enable the use of category-b binaries.=A0 =A0 We=0A> are doing all of =
that.=0A> =0A> > We don't have permission from legal@ to ship=0A> Category-=
B=0A> > sources .. that must be fixed .. with axe.=0A> >=0A> =0A> Put the a=
xe away, Pedro.=A0=A0=A0As you know,=0A> category-b code is not=0A> include=
d in the release.=A0 We already went through the=0A> audit on that.=0A> =0A=
=0AThere was no audit. Mr RAT never examined those and we=0Adiscussed this =
was a temporary situation.=0A=0A> In case it is not clear, I'll veto any at=
tempt by you to=0A> break the 3.4 source distributions.=0A> =0A=0AYou mean =
source distribution (tarballs) don't build on=0Atheir own and depend on wha=
t we carry in SVN? Sounds=0Alike something is wrong.=0A=0AWell ... those fi=
les are not required by default for=0Athe build, they are only optionally u=
sed and we did it=0Aon purpose so as long as we make a small adjustment in=
=0Athe buildbots I don't see what you can veto about it.=0A=0AAnd while you=
 are so brave about vetoing hypothetical=0Aissues ... I already axed a coup=
le of tarballs from the=0Aold Apache commons and Lucene. Have fun putting t=
hem=0Aback :-P.=0A=0APedro.=0A