So again, I am convinced by your argument and the history trail of
reasoning behind it. Just feels that the solution that we might use
(and that others are using) and the desired ideal are pretty far apart
from each other.
Andrus
On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:43 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
Yeah I vaguely remember this discussion - http://markmail.org/thread/njray5dbazwcdcts
and I have to agree with Roy's logic, which convinces me better
than a mention of "policy" :-)
Ok, so say we have a Maven build system that exports buildable
source with poms... which, considering the reliance on a public
Maven repo for dependencies may not be that "buildable" 6 months
from now :-/ Even open-source Apache-licensed (but not ASF-managed)
packages may disappear. How far can we go with that? (a good
experiment would be to take a year old existing ASF package and
trying to build it, say Geronimo or something of that level of
complexity..)
Andrus
On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:28 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
It's one thing to state that it may not be a requirement to provide
buildable source, but it's quite a stretch to claim that we do
provide
buildable source immediately after a message stating "It is
practically impossible to do that as the build system is ... well,
complex" Taken to extremes, you could say that a jar file full of
classes is buildable source, since, with the right tools, you can
decompile the class files back to java code.
But if you want to say that we're meeting the source build
requirement, consider this. It would mean that everyone voting +1
on a
release has somehow thrown a home-grown build-system on top of the
source release and successfully built it. Because that's the only
way an evaluator can be sure that the release has met the condition
and the release manager hasn't accidentally left out some required
piece of source. We wouldn't say that we know that the release
has a
valid checksum without checking it ourselves or that the release
has a
valid signature without checking it ourselves. Same goes for
building it.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org
> wrote:
On Aug 16, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
Every ASF release must contain a source package, which must be
sufficient for a user to build and test the release provided they
have
access to the appropriate platform and tools. The source package
must
be cryptographically signed by the Release Manager with a detached
signature; and that package together with its signature must be
tested
prior to voting +1 for release. Folks who vote +1 for release may
offer their own cryptographic signature to be concatenated with the
detached signature file (at the Release Manager's discretion)
prior to
release.
Actually, re-reading the above and it doesn't state a need of a
working
pom.xml or build.xml, just the source that is matching the
binaries. In this
respect we don't violate this. We do not provide a buildfile, but
a Java
developer will be able to build the source regardless (e.g. by
writing
build.xml himself, or importing sources in Eclipse).
Andrus
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org
> wrote:
On Aug 16, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
Every ASF release must contain a source package, which must be
sufficient for a user to build and test the release provided they
have
access to the appropriate platform and tools. The source package
must
be cryptographically signed by the Release Manager with a detached
signature; and that package together with its signature must be
tested
prior to voting +1 for release. Folks who vote +1 for release may
offer their own cryptographic signature to be concatenated with the
detached signature file (at the Release Manager's discretion)
prior to
release.
Actually, re-reading the above and it doesn't state a need of a
working
pom.xml or build.xml, just the source that is matching the
binaries. In this
respect we don't violate this. We do not provide a buildfile, but
a Java
developer will be able to build the source regardless (e.g. by
writing
build.xml himself, or importing sources in Eclipse).
Andrus
