Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1338676241.44028.YahooMailNeo@web160903.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1338590486.60251.YahooMailClassic@web113501.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<158C78187837415AB228D8783A97B27E@googlmail.com>
	<4FCA8B2E.4040903@apache.org>
	<1338674678.23691.YahooMailNeo@web160905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<CAP-ksogKHSu8QCn2wV_KZ4wVx7xbhiiTLfrsmDw_sG-dwHOGtA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1338676241.44028.YahooMailNeo@web160903.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 18:44:34 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAP-ksojw96OhgA6moA7MrC8D7igac4vrEOp=F7ETP_XQBLxEJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the
 graduation process)
From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote=
:
>>________________________________
>> From: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>
>>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2012 6:20 PM
>>Subject: Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the =
graduation process)
>>
>>On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wro=
te:
>>> This situation doesn't seem to be diffusing itself,
>>> even tho I have tried to explain that the 3.4.0 release
>>> deps "packaging" does not comply with infra policy.
>>>
>>> Surely there is a middle ground here- that the missing
>>> release deps package simply be generated from those
>>> tarballs in svn.=C2=A0 So long as the source release uses
>>>
>>> deps from the (downloaded from mirrors) deps package
>>>
>>> instead of directly from svn, AFAICT this project will
>>> be in compliance with all legal and infra policies.
>>>
>>
>>So what would the status of the debs tarball be?=C2=A0 Is it part of the
>>release?=C2=A0 Do we vote on it?=C2=A0 It has cat-b source in it, so one =
would
>>think that this could not be in a release, and not on the mirrors?=C2=A0 =
Or
>>is there a recognized exception for dependencies provided as a
>>convenience?
>
>
> There are few if any legal policy constraints on convenience artfacts-
> if you go through the mirrors you will find instances of non-open-source
> items (eg=C2=A0 Windows installers, binaries, etc).=C2=A0 Convenience art=
ifacts
> do not form the basis of a release vote.=C2=A0 I see no reason why the
> licensing on source artifacts that we distribute as a convenience
> should be more restrictive than the licensing on binaries- policy
> designed around Java artifacts isn't meant to place unreasonable
> limits on what AOO can reasonably distribute on the mirrors.
>
> Does that help?
>

Thanks.  That does give us another option to consider.

>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Whether that's best practice is debatable, but I don't
>>> believe it's so unreasonable that a rational person
>>> would withhold their participation in the project over it.
>>>
>>>
>>> HTH
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>________________________________
>>>> From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org>
>>>>To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; J=C3=BCrgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@goog=
lemail.com>
>>>>Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2012 5:52 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting th=
e graduation process)
>>>>
>>>>On 06/02/12 15:11, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well I am a committer in the only big UNIX-like
>>>>>> distribution that is carrying Apache OpenOffice
>>>>>> nowadays. We would really like to use a source
>>>>>> distribution through ASF mirrors but since the ASF
>>>>>> doesn't provide one that works well we have been
>>>>>> rolling our own. Having a working source
>>>>>> distribution would help attract linux packagers,
>>>>>> I think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> well if that is really the case you have failed on several levels
>>>>>
>>>>> - you didn't really have used or tried the source tarball
>>>>> - you didn't gave the appropriate and necessary feedback
>>>>> - you didn't helped to fix your concerns relating the source release.=
 At least it seems you have some concerns
>>>>
>>>>Sure, I am not perfect but you can't really blame the
>>>>messenger if the package was broken.
>>>>
>>>>I have huge experience packaging stuff for my own selfish
>>>>purposes in the past (BRL-CAD, FEM utilities, stuff like that),
>>>>however I am not a ports committer/packager myself;
>>>>I am a src committer. You can see my work in some sound
>>>>drivers, the ext2fs implementation and some compiler
>>>>updates. I have been very busy between kernel coding
>>>>and the AOO SVN stuff to work also on the AOO
>>>>packaging.
>>>>
>>>>The vast packaging work in FreeBSD has been done by
>>>>Maho-san for several years and he has been so efficient
>>>>I haven't really had to intervene other than to give some
>>>>minor suggestions. He is a ports committer and I am so
>>>>glad he has been around to take care of things.
>>>>
>>>>I have been busy on some updates and I only noticed
>>>>a few days ago that we are not using the source tarballs
>>>>provided by Apache. I can't really test everything behind
>>>>a release and, with due respect, all I do is voluntary work
>>>>so I do have to spend my time in other activities too.
>>>>
>>>>I am attempting to provide some feedback here but
>>>>I would suggest you ask the guys doing Ubuntu or
>>>>Debian packaging if they are using the src tarballs
>>>>and how we can make the packaging easier.
>>>>
>>>>> That makes me really thinking ...
>>>>
>>>>Please stop imagining things. I know you guys are not
>>>>happy about having to do extra reshuffling in the tree
>>>>and playing with scripts to adapt things to what *I*
>>>>think is the Apache way. In all honesty let's admit I had
>>>>mentioned this was a grey area since a long time ago
>>>>and I have even offered to step aside and let
>>>>the project evolve on it's own.
>>>>
>>>>Pedro.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>