On 12.01.2012 16:45, Rob Weir wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Pedro Giffuni<p...@apache.org> wrote:
--- Gio 12/1/12, Andre Fischer<a...@a-w-f.de> ha scritto:
...
What is the difference then between ext_sources and
ext_libraries?
How do you decide which goes where?
ext_sources contains (and will contain) the source code
archives.
I hate to make developer's life difficult but, from
what is known, no Apache Project seems to be carrying
Category B software in their repositories (feel free
to prove me wrong). Not that it's a new problem, just
something we will have to think about.
It is a service to downstream consumers. Just as we aggregate
licenses and notices to make it easier for them, we also aggregate the
optional category-b code tarballs.
Also, the MPL license requires that we make our modified files
available electronically for 12 months. But we cannot guarantee that
external hosts for the code will be around for 12 months. OpenOffice
has shown itself to be longer-lived and more stable than many of our
dependencies.
So I don't see a problem here, so long as we:
1) Do not include category-b code in our source packages
2) Do segregate the category-b tarballs in a way that makes it clear
they are special and will not accidentally be mixed in with the ALv2
source
3) Do maintain the LICENSE and NOTICE files so they remain accurate
Just to be clear on this. I do not intend to alter the general behavior
of how external libraries are handled. I only want to change the
directory where the already existing modules will be located that build
the external libraries.
ext_libraries will contain our makefiles and patches that
unpack the archives from ext_sources, configure, build,
and finally deliver them.
I am OK with this, as long as I can use my prepackaged
version by defining it configure (FWIW, I already
updated the FreeBSD package).
Regards,
Pedro.
