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: Need to Revisit RAT Excludes and Wildcards
Date Tue, 21 Aug 2012 02:15:00 GMT

On Aug 20, 2012, at 6:42 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:

>  
> ----- Original Message -----
>  ...
>> 
>> Hi Folks,
>> 
>> We are really getting ahead of ourselves.
>> 
> 
> I think so too :(.
> 
>> We have a legitimate -1 IPMC vote on our release, it might get changed - Marvin 
>> asked for confirmation that the IPMC votes are based only on the official SOURCE

>> release.
>> 
> 
> Marvin's intervention is very far reaching indeed. It pretty much supports the position
> that there is no such thing as a binary release, and it involves some issues that have
> to be solved before graduation.
> 
> For the podling, up till now, the source was only of secondary importance because
> end users (and QA) can't really evaluate the source code and instead are interested
> in the behaviour of the program (therefore the executables). As I see it, the issue of
> considering the source code alone is very valid for the IPMC. I think it is perfectly
> reasonable that this issue has come up at this time.
> 
> The particular concern of how the "official" packages are generated and distributed
> is also interesting. At this time I would say the FreeBSD port is as legitimate and
> worthy of being tagged "Apache OpenOffice" as the Windows packages in
> sourceforge.

I have been thinking the same.

I think that we need to carefully define what is an official Apache Release - SOURCE - and
what is a project "sanctioned" binary artifact that can be called Apache OpenOffice in a way
that Users will be able to trust what they receive.

The build options and source code changes for each "sanctioned" binary artifact will need
to be disclosed. At what point does a build of Apache OpenOffice require the name Foo Bar
powered by Apache OpenOffice?

>> 
>> PS. Sure glad that we did as suggested by Pedro ;-)
>> 
> 
> Yes, thanks for mentioning! I took a lot of heat for it at the time but finally it should
> be clear it had to be done :).

I was with you at the time. It can be easy to forget that some of the initial compromises
are interim solutions that are contingent on further action. There is an important reason
for the DISCLAIMER, and this is one.

Regards,
Dave


> 
> Pedro.


Mime
View raw message