On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni <giffu...@tutopia.com> wrote: > Hello; > > As you all might've been thinking, one of the things > we really have to move out of the tree is dmake so I > just helped dmake step out by moving it to it's own > repo at Google Code. >
Why exactly do we need to move dmake? Having copyleft build tools is not necessarily a problem, especially if the code is not included in the release. Remember, when we build on Linux we use many GNU utilities. I don't see anything wrong with just leaving Dmake where it was. > http://code.google.com/p/ooo-dmake/ > > Why Google Code and not apache-extras you might > wonder: Dmake is something that is unlikely to > be transferred to Apache and it's a tool that > both AOOo and LibreO are interested in getting > rid of. Adding it to apache-extras would've > given that impression that dmake somehow had a > future in Apache ;). > Hosting at Apache-Extra does not imply something "has a future in Apache". Its purpose is specifically for things that cannot come to Apache. We have the incubation process for bringing code (and communities) to Apache. And we have an Apache Labs for starting new code bases, pre-incubation. But Apache-Extras is for: "Apache Extras projects are not official Apache Software Foundation projects. Apache Extras is not a replacement for the Apache Incubator, which is the official way for a project to join the Apache Software Foundation. Apache Extras has been established for projects that don't want to, or are unable to be a formal part of the Apache Software Foundation but still wish to demonstrate their affinity to one ore more official Apache project. We recommend starting a project here if one or more of the following is true: -- the project is experimental and the committers are not sure of the future direction. -- the project has a license or depends on a license that is not compatible with the Apache License 2.0 -- the project is targeted at a small niche and might not benefit from the wider exposure of being an Apache Software project." See: http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/faq.html > I was not even going to add the ooo- prefix but > the simple "dmake" name was taken by some other, > completely unrelated, project. > > I also had a try at transferring the SVN history > from the older repository but that involves getting > a dump of all the OOo repository and then using > svndumpfilter ... it was just not worth it IMHO, > If someone wants to do it, I could try to load > it though. > > I will try to provide some prebuilt win32 binaries > on the Google Code site but now we can focus on > removing dmake from the tree and adding a build > dependency in the same lines of epm. > I'm not seeing the benefit here. We currently have a dependency on a build tool that any committer can modify and improve, or fix bugs in. This is replaced by having the same tool in an external repository that only one committer has rights to modify. This doesn't remove the dependency. It does not improve the code. It does does change anything from the licensing perspective. It just moves it out of control of the project. And I thought the idea was to stop using dmake altogether? What am I missing? I'm not saying you are wrong to do this. I'm just saying that I don't see why this is a good thing. -Rob > cheers, > > Pedro. >
