I believe this has nothing to do with nonoss. If I understand it right, nonoss modules are required for cloudstack to work with certain 3rd party stuff.
This one is just a helper to create a windows installer. It chose to use a mvn command to create the installer instead of shell/bat script. It should work with either nonoss or oss modules. This is very similar to cloud.spec[1] we have which is used to create the rpm and which already has mysql-connector-java already listed as required package. I think the right way would be to create independent git repos for deb/rpm/windows installers/packages. In its current state, I don’t see it any different from other helper installer scripts we already have. [1] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=blob_plain;f=packaging/centos63/cloud.spec;hb=HEAD ~Rajani On 08-Jul-2014, at 9:56 am, Damoder Reddy <damoder.re...@citrix.com<mailto:damoder.re...@citrix.com>> wrote: Ok, To clarify the windows MSI will not build in the default profile. I have enabled a new profile "buildw" to build windows MSI installer which explicitly we need to pass similar to nonoss? Is that sufficient to make it nonoss or still we need to move it under nonoss profile explicitly? Thanks Damoder/ -----Original Message----- From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014 9:58 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org> Cc: Damoder Reddy; Koushik Das Subject: Re: Review Request 23192: Adding Readme and run checkbox at the end of the installation. Also installing mysql connector On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Chip Childers <chipchild...@apache.org<mailto:chipchild...@apache.org>> wrote: On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 03:14:30PM +0000, Leo Simons wrote: It looks like that maven pom on windows _by default_ downloads and installs a variety of non-apache-license (and/or non-mit/bsd/variant license) software. That shouldnąt really happen. The principle is one of łleast surprise˛: As a user or developer who does not RTFM, following the default commands/tools/etc, you should end up with a more-or-less apache-licensed build result (*) that you can redistribute the result under. +1 But apache policy is that it is acceptable to provide scripts/build tools/assistance to help those same users/developers do things that they want to do. As long as they understand the legal situation they end up in. I would recommend adding a "nonoss" maven profile that the developer/user has to explicitly select in order to do those downloads. As long as that option is described clearly, thatąs then ok. See http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/apr/apr/trunk/README for an example of how to point out the license situation. We already have the nonoss profile, so this is a pretty good fix for the windows build issues noted above IMO. Damoder/Koushik - please make this change. Something similar is true by the way (IMHO, but as a project cloudstack can definitely decide differently), for a possible MSI script. Making an MSI script that prompts the user whether to download mysql at the point of install, **clearly pointing out the license situation** if they choose to do so, seems reasonable, and I personally would not object to shipping _that_ kind of script as part of an apache source release. +1 - that's a reasonable approach as well. Damoder / Koushik - what +do you think about this approach? I like this approach. We have a number of things that aren't in the 'default' build because of policy reasons. This is just another of them. Finally, the _spirit_ behind the apache policies is that there should be an option to use cloudstack with a license-compatible database (say, postgres), even if most users will use mysql (just like most people that use dbm with httpd will use berkely dbm, but you _can_ use something else). Itąs perhaps unfortunate that this isnąt supported, but thatąs not apache policy, and given the license situation of other system dependencies, I can imagine no-one here wants to make it a priority. Yeah, that would be nice... but somebody would have to decide that they want to do that. cheers, Leo PS: IANAL, but, a lot of this discussion is a bit beyond legal, and is about choice/policy, and the policy is supposed to be based on common sense much more than license stuff tends to be :) Agreed - this is about policy not legality.
