On 29.05.2012 20:29, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hi Drew;
--- Mar 29/5/12, drew<[email protected]> ha scritto:
<snip>
Yes the situation was specifically postponed as a graduation
issue, I am not going through that discussion again.
I made a concrete proposal with two alternatives:
- They are moved to a friendly ftp/http site.
- I step down from the PPMC to avoid the community
the pain of a -1 vote.
...
Could be - it was just the way Pedro phrased his comment I
thought perhaps his thinking was being influenced by the
earlier remarks.
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.
I did offer to step down then but I don't mean to make
a big issue out of this. If I step down it will be
communicated in the private list exclusively. I would
still be a committer and nothing would really change
for me.
What I feel is disappointing is the lack of
acknowledgement that there *is* an issue. Category-B
software can be included in releases in binary form
but it should be otherwise actively discouraged, and in
general unsupported: it should not be included in the
buildbots and using it should be, in general terms, a
PITA.
But the binary builds have to come from somewhere. Unless we want to
drop the features for which we need category-B libraries then making it
harder to build them is IMHO not the right way to go.
But maybe moving the offending libraries to another server would be a
first step? If you find a server and copy the files over then I am
willing to adapt the scripts accordingly.
-Andre
IMHO this project benefited greatly from the Category-X
replacement and in general I would like the project to
head in a direction that will lead to greater license
and code simplification but the current situation where
we work-around the policy issues instead of solving them
is (again IMO) unacceptable.
Pedro.
