On 28 Feb 2012, at 11:26 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: >> I don't have access to an AIX machine, so can only rely on Michael's >> judgement for this. Given that we aren't awash with AIX expertise, we need >> to put some trust in the person doing the packaging, the same as we do for >> Netware and other similar platforms. > > FWLIW, others on the list have access.
Noone has yet stepped forward if they have, it would be good to get more experienced eyes on this. >> I don't see why labeling it "ASF" is a problem. Anyone building the package >> would be doing so by following a formal procedure codified in the build >> script, which is in turn published by the ASF, as opposed some vendor's >> build script. > Maybe this info would help... I dunno. This really is project-only > scope we're managing, not ASF-wide scope. Either there is > coordination among different projects, or it shouldn't look like there > is. Of course there is coordination among projects - Michael has packaged (or at least I understand he has, still waiting to be sent the scripts) the ASF versions of APR, and the ASF versions of APR-util, which are the logical dependencies of the ASF version of httpd. We have been using this naming convention in the Solaris build scripts for many many years, and I don't see why suddenly this should be a problem, or why we need to subvert that convention all of a sudden. >>> What about the todos regarding copyrights and licenses? >> >> What specifically about them? > > The todo file you committed says that verbatim ;) What are they, and > why can't they be resolved before committing? > >> From what I can see, AIX packages offer the option to force the end user to >> accept a license before installing a package, and there is an open question >> as to whether we do this or not. We don't do it for RPM (nor does RPM let >> you do this), I see no reason to mandate doing it here. > > License acceptance is one thing. I dunno what the copyright issue is. Michael, would it be possible to clarify? There is nothing in the license for httpd that obligates an end user to accept a license before installing, so if they don't need to now, there is no need to change that. Regards, Graham --
