On 7/31/06, Joerg Heinicke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip/>
Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akolkar <at> gmail.com> writes:
<snap/>
> > I'm not in favor of distributing deps along with Commons libraries' > distributions. > > * Its straightforward to provide an ant target to download the deps. In contrast to this I prefer to deliver the dependencies as well. There are rumours about companies that don't provide direct access to the internet from the employee's PCs, but only via a terminal server (Unfortunately, I'm working for such a company). The problem is simply that those people can't use such download tasks or Maven. If you don't deliver the dependencies they have to run after each single jar. Even for Apache Cocoon (which has a huge list of dependencies) we will provide a distribution including the dependencies.
<snip/> Yes, it is more effort for the end user (to download the deps individually), but I remain unconvinced this is the right way to proceed for Commons libraries (I'm aware a lot of frameworks do such a thing).
> * Distribution of (potentially) 3rd party binaries (as an example, > JUnit, in this case) means we have to understand their licenses (by > refering to the ASF legal docs), determine reciprocity requirements as > needed etc. No bang for the buck here. It has worked for years. Why shouldn't it work further on?
<snap/> This is not about their use, rather their distribution in our release distros. Atleast I haven't seen such a modus operandi in the RCs I've looked at recently. Going one step ahead, it'd be nice IMO, if the lib directory in the [transaction] SVN repository also disappeared. -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
