tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Craig R. McClanahan" <craig...@apache.org>
Subject RE: TC 4.0 RPM Packaging - WAS: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache Tomcat 4.0 Fina l Release
Date Mon, 24 Sep 2001 22:59:54 GMT


On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, GOMEZ Henri wrote:

> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:24:49 +0200
> From: GOMEZ Henri <hgomez@slib.fr>
> Reply-To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: RE: TC 4.0 RPM Packaging - WAS: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Apache Tomcat 4.0
>       Fina l Release
>
> >My opinion is, the binary RPM should contain only Jakarta
> >stuff. If there are a
> >few required jars that we cannot easily redistribute, then I'm
> >okay with
> >leaving them out. Maybe we create a new top-level text doc,
> >"RPM-README" or
> >something, outlining what you need to do if you just installed
> >the RPM distro.
>
> I agree so could we have required jars (exception of JSSE) somewhere
> in a tarball which could be used to build another RPM
>

<I-am-not-a-lawyer>
Although there's no technical challenge to doing this, the licensing
permission becomes much more murky.  The standard "permission to
redistribute" paragraph on the other JAR files talks about packaging
inside something with which you are adding value -- and it's not obvious
that your proposed approach would qualify, where it's pretty obvious that
the value add in the single-download approach is a complete application
that includes functionality requiring those JARs.
</I-am-not-a-lawyer>

In general, though, how would making two RPMs rather than one satisfy the
"RPM packing requirements" rules any better?  If the JARs are not supposed
to be packaged in the primary RPM, why is having them in a separate RPM
OK?

Personally, I'd lean a little further on the side of the poor user whom we
force to go through incredible machinations to install and use a binary
distribution ...

Craig



Mime
View raw message