On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: > Oh boy ... > > --- Mer 30/5/12, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > ... >> >> You can copy the category-b binaries someplace else, but you >> must not remove the ones that are already here. Otherwise you >> will break not only the buildbots, but you will also break >> every one who has downloaded the source from our 3.4 >> release. > > So *NOW* you are admitting that those tarballs are part > of the Release?? >
Not at all. But they are referenced from build files. I hope this distinction is clear. Remember, the build also references local category-x files in the sense of Linux system dependencies. But referencing them by name or directory or URL is not the same as including them in a release. Sure you see this? Again, go back to the licensing page and the principles stated there. This is not a crusade to eradicate category-b code from the face of the earth. This is about making it clear to downstream consumers what the dependencies are, what obligations those dependencies bring, and to require an explicit, informed decision for the downstream developer to enable the use of category-b binaries. We are doing all of that. > We don't have permission from legal@ to ship Category-B > sources .. that must be fixed .. with axe. > Put the axe away, Pedro. As you know, category-b code is not included in the release. We already went through the audit on that. In case it is not clear, I'll veto any attempt by you to break the 3.4 source distributions. -Rob > Pedro. >
