On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:21 PM Eric Bresie <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> > > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 1:27 PM Brad Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 9:57 AM Eric Bresie <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Okay so from the README.cnd I see: > > > > > > > There are many caveats currently, a possibly incomplete list: > > > > > > > >* building requires a number of files from the original repository - > > work > > > by >NetBeans C/C++ enthusiasts is needed to resolve this in one way or > > > another > > > > > > Is there a reason these files are not included? > > > > > > Is it as simple as pull these (maybe update licenses), and check them > in > > to > > > the new cnd branch? > > > > > > > From my perspective, I'm unsure at this point.. We will need to look into > > this.. > There is a reason why these files were not included. These were not part of the donation, and hence cannot be relicensed to Apache. We may be able to use some of them, under some conditions - see https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html Category B and Category X. E.g. I suspect using the icons under CDDL may be possible by putting the icons into the repository and marking them properly. For the other files, that is harder to say, and probably some investigation must be done to determine if a replacement is needed or not, and what the replacement should be. The reason for not including those files is to make it clear these are open questions (as opposed to just having a list somewhere, which could be missed). > > > > > > >* building requires a number of binaries to be added manually > > > > > > Would changing any build files (ant/maven?) to pull these directly from > > > applicable repositories instead of having to copy these resolve this? > > > > > > For example, I see reference to an antlr jar being needed. Could > > reference > > > to dependency to this which then gets pulled during prep for building? > > > > > > > Same as above.. But, I started giving this some thought as Antonio did > > mention this.. > > > > >* external libraries/dependencies need to be reviewed and put up to > Apache > > > standard > > > > > > What is meant by “Apache standard”? > > > > > > What needs to be done here? > > > > > > > Not sure what needs to be done here.. But, if you have some comments, I > > think everyone would welcome that.. > > > > Just an FYI, but Antonio has been giving some effort recently. And that > is > > a welcome addition! > > > > -brad w. > > > > Regarding "Apache standard", I thought maybe something from here > http://www.apache.org/dev/standards/ > It was simply meant to make sure the code adheres to the 3rd party licensing policy: https://apache.org/legal/resolved.html the release policy: https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html and any other Apache policy (or any other additional NetBeans requirements we would want to add). Jan > But I'm thinking this has to do when potentially implementing a standard, > not necessarily what the standards are. > > Maybe it's more "notional" or maybe having to do with the "Apache Way" > like: > https://apache.org/theapacheway/index.html > https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the-apache-way-to-sustainable > https://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html > https://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy > https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/category/SuccessAtApache > <https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/category/SuccessAtApache> > https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/promoting-podlings > > Assume it has to do with meeting the quality standards (maybe like a > podlings project) or other standard processes when managing things. > > Coding standards? > > Of course licensings is always something to consider. > > Eric Bresie > [email protected] >
