Costin Manolache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 27/02/2003 08:28:05 AM:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > > differing views on how to make use of the repository. Costin and I seem to > > be of the option that a significant portion of the value of the repository > > comes from sharing and centralizing the managment of ASF-acceptable third > > party jars. > > Not entirely true, but close. > > I think third party jars that are found compatible with ASF license - i.e. > freely redistributable - are very valuable as they will allow projects > to better manage their dependencies. You know that ASF jars aren't 'freely' distributable, right? The license specifies some conditions on binary distribution. > I don't believe in a single repository or a single policy - the download > tools must be smart and be able to deal with different kinds of > repositories ( apache, sourceforge, maven, etc ). Heck - if the tool can > display the license and ask for an "I agree" and if this satisfies the > requirements of some licenses - it should be supported. That's what > makes a good tool - flexibility and ability to accept multiple inputs. Sure, that's a tool that can handle lots of repositories. But what about the apache repo? > Well, Maven doesn't seem to be that concerned with duplication, and values > the competition :-) To paraphrase Jason - what's wrong with multiple > competing repositories ? A smart tool should be able to support multiple > policies - or choose to restrict the users to a particular set. Sure, feel free. > To take one example - the jar naming - I understand very well that Maven > people decided on this thing. And I understand that a lot of people > consider this a good decision - and a lot of other people don't. If this > becomes an apache-wide policy, I strongly disagree that Maven can decide > for apache policies. I don't think we've tried to. > In other words - as long as maven decisions affect only maven - I don't > care. But if it affects other projects, and the repository certainly does > - then the PMCs of those projects or the apache community are the ones > that decide. Sure, but please take into account the work we've already done. > +1 on the oversight committee for non-apache jars. Believe me, the oversight bit is the hardest part. > A strong -1 on oversight for apache jars. We already have PMCs for each > project, and those should oversee the distribution of their own files. Even by other projects? -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog Work: http://www.multitask.com.au --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
