On 30 May 2012 00:03, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: > > --- Mar 29/5/12, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> ha scritto: > ... > >> > >> > The idea that we have remaining issues with Category-B >> > tarballs in the tree has been around since before the >> > release, and one of our mentors (Ross I recall) did >> > acknowledge my point of view. >> > >> >> Again, I don't see an issue here. But if you feel >> strongly about this you are welcome to copy the >> ext_sources over to Apache Extras and do a >> trivial update of the build >> script. Whatever makes you happy. > > I am busy at the moment, plus doing this will > mean I have to suspend the updates I was working > on. > > I think I will start next week. I will only move > Category-B code and I will disable it from the > buildbots too: it's rather inconvenient to have > the buildbot depend on downloading extra tarballs. > > This is admittedly a stop gap solution to comply > better with the Apache policies, the real fix would > be to work collectively on replacing the code that > can be replaced:
Alternatively, it is possible to include cat B [1] dependencies in binary form. Is there any need to include the source? [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b > rhino --> Google V8 > nss --> openssl > Seamonkey --> Mulberry library > > but that doesn't seem to be a priority for 4.0 :( . > > Pedro. >
