On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
--- Lun 18/6/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto:
Andre did a nice job but the category B tarballs are
still in SVN so I dont
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
--- Sab 2/6/12, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com ha scritto:
This situation doesn't seem to be
diffusing itself,
even tho I have tried to explain that
--- Lun 18/6/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Pedro Giffuni
wrote:
...
I certainly think this makes sense.
Discriminating the Category-B tarballs in the mirrors
is easier and does not give the impression that it is
ASF code or that we
--- Lun 18/6/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto:
Andre did a nice job but the category B tarballs are
still in SVN so I dont consider the issue has been
solved.
Do you have any proposal for how that could addressed
without breaking the released AOO 3.4.0 source
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
--- Lun 18/6/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto:
Andre did a nice job but the category B tarballs are
still in SVN so I dont consider the issue has been
solved.
Do you have any proposal for how that
+1
sounds like a plan
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 07:59
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; p...@apache.org
Subject: Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the
graduation process)
On Mon, Jun
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; p...@apache.org
Subject: Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the
graduation process)
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
--- Lun 18/6/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto:
Andre did
--- Sab 2/6/12, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com ha scritto:
This situation doesn't seem to be
diffusing itself,
even tho I have tried to explain that the 3.4.0 release
deps packaging does not comply with infra policy.
Surely there is a middle ground here- that the missing
release
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Sorry to highlight something more here...
The draft (which I insist is clearer that the resolved FAQ)
says, under License Categories:
Pedro, your logic violates every principle of interpretation. If
something was in a
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Ross;
I don't think it's my turn since my issues remain unresolved.
I think Ross's idea was to stop batting this back and forth at a high
level, and instead focus on a specific file. So get into the details
rather than
forward.
From: Rob Weir robw...@apache.org
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2012 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the
graduation process)
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Pedro Giffuni p
this issue properly
going forward.
From: Rob Weir robw...@apache.org
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2012 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the
graduation process)
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 9:08 PM
Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2012 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the
graduation process)
FWIW, part of migrating to a TLP involves relocating
your svn tree to top
Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the
graduation process)
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote:
FWIW, part of migrating to a TLP involves relocating
your svn tree to top-level, thereby breaking any links
to svn urls in 3.4.0's source tarball
--- Sab 2/6/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto:
...
Pedro, your logic violates every principle of
interpretation. If something was in a draft
and then was removed from the draft, that
suggests that there was not consensus for it to
remain.
I think the issue is strictly policy
Am Samstag, 2. Juni 2012 um 00:41 schrieb Pedro Giffuni:
--- Ven 1/6/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto:
...
And computers need electricity, which is not free and
not available under a compatible license. I wish you
could keep focused or at least do an effort to
On 06/02/12 15:11, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
...
Well I am a committer in the only big UNIX-like
distribution that is carrying Apache OpenOffice
nowadays. We would really like to use a source
distribution through ASF mirrors but since the ASF
doesn't provide one that works well we have been
withhold their participation in the project over it.
HTH
From: Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com
Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2012 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re
, June 2, 2012 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the
graduation process)
On 06/02/12 15:11, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
...
Well I am a committer in the only big UNIX-like
distribution that is carrying Apache OpenOffice
nowadays. We would really like to use
From: Rob Weir robw...@apache.org
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2012 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the
graduation process)
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae
...@googlemail.com
Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2012 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: Moving Category-B tarballs (was Re: [PROPOSAL] Starting the
graduation process)
On 06/02/12 15:11, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
...
Well I am a committer in the only big UNIX-like
distribution that is carrying Apache OpenOffice
On 31.05.2012 18:12, Rob Weir wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Andre Fischera...@a-w-f.de wrote:
On 31.05.2012 14:51, Rob Weir wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Pedro Giffunip...@apache.orgwrote:
--- Mer 30/5/12, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.orgha scritto:
[...]
So
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On May 31, 2012 5:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Jürgen;
Let me clarify some issues too ...
On 05/31/12 10:39, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
...
...
6. we agreed to upstream changes to external libs where possible
On 5/31/12 6:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
Hi Jürgen;
Let me clarify some issues too ...
On 05/31/12 10:39, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
...
let me explain some details here because I think they can help to
understand.
1. we have dependencies to several external libraries including
category-b
On 6/1/12 9:47 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On May 31, 2012 5:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Jürgen;
Let me clarify some issues too ...
On 05/31/12 10:39, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
...
...
6. we agreed to
On 1 June 2012 09:50, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 6/1/12 9:47 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On May 31, 2012 5:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
...
I admit this is very clear. I don't expect such
Hi,
sorry for top posting but I followed Ross advice and will give a
concrete example.
Hunspell - MPL + LGPL
- we use currently version 1.2.9 and compile the source in our build env
on demand when the correct configure switch is used
- we apply 4 or in case of mingw 5 patch files (depends on
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Andre Fischer a...@a-w-f.de wrote:
On 31.05.2012 18:12, Rob Weir wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Andre Fischera...@a-w-f.de wrote:
On 31.05.2012 14:51, Rob Weir wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Pedro Giffunip...@apache.org wrote:
---
On 01.06.2012 14:03, Rob Weir wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Andre Fischera...@a-w-f.de wrote:
On 31.05.2012 18:12, Rob Weir wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Andre Fischera...@a-w-f.dewrote:
On 31.05.2012 14:51, Rob Weir wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 9:45 PM,
Hi Jürgen;
On 06/01/12 03:16, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
On 5/31/12 6:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
...
First of all we should clarify what a source release is in this context.
Does our source release contain Category-A tarballs? In other
words, does this file:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Jürgen;
On 06/01/12 03:16, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
On 5/31/12 6:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
...
First of all we should clarify what a source release is in this context.
Does our source release contain Category-A
Ugh ...
--- Ven 1/6/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto:
...
No release is buildable on its own. You need an
operating system, a compiler, often other pre-existing
libraries on the system, other prerequisites that need
to be installed by the developers.
And computers need
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Ugh ...
--- Ven 1/6/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto:
...
No release is buildable on its own. You need an
operating system, a compiler, often other pre-existing
libraries on the system, other prerequisites
--- Ven 1/6/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto:
...
And computers need electricity, which is not free and
not available under a compatible license. I wish you
could keep focused or at least do an effort to
understand the issues so we can solve them.
Be nice.
Couldn't
Just bringing this item back to the top. Nobody has linked to a policy
that allows this or disallows it yet. However, Pedro has indicated he
doesn't object to this specific case.
Can we consider this one done? If so that is good progress (thank you
Jurgen for making consensus possible on one
Hi Ross;
I don't think it's my turn since my issues remain unresolved.
However let me recap:
1) I think just having patches that can or cannot be applied
to category-B licensed code is OK as long as it is not the
default.
2) I don't think we are allowed to distribute source tarballs
in
Sorry to highlight something more here...
The draft (which I insist is clearer that the resolved FAQ)
says, under License Categories:
http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html#criteriaandcategories
/Even optional works must adhere to this policy if they are included as
part of the Apache
Hi Pedro,
On 31.05.2012 03:45, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
--- Mer 30/5/12, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org ha scritto:
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.
No. If they
On 31 May 2012 12:54, Andre Fischer a...@a-w-f.de wrote:
On 31.05.2012 03:45, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
--- Mer 30/5/12, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org ha scritto:
...
You mean source distribution (tarballs) don't build on
their own and depend on what we carry in SVN? Sounds
like something is
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
--- Mer 30/5/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto:
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
On 31.05.2012 14:51, Rob Weir wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Pedro Giffunip...@apache.org wrote:
--- Mer 30/5/12, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org ha scritto:
[...]
So instead of a an axe, let's try a scalpel. The ext_sources tree was
branched along with the rest of the the AOO 3.4
On 5/31/12 2:30 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
On 31 May 2012 12:54, Andre Fischer a...@a-w-f.de wrote:
On 31.05.2012 03:45, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
--- Mer 30/5/12, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org ha scritto:
...
You mean source distribution (tarballs) don't build on
their own and depend on what we
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Andre Fischer a...@a-w-f.de wrote:
On 31.05.2012 14:51, Rob Weir wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Pedro Giffunip...@apache.org wrote:
--- Mer 30/5/12, Rob Weirrobw...@apache.org ha scritto:
[...]
So instead of a an axe, let's try a scalpel.
Hi Jürgen;
Let me clarify some issues too ...
On 05/31/12 10:39, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
...
let me explain some details here because I think they can help to
understand.
1. we have dependencies to several external libraries including
category-b for some features
2. we have checked in all this
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
Thanks Andre!
On 05/30/12 04:34, Andre Fischer wrote:
...
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
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
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
--- Mer 30/5/12, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto:
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.
No. If they are just referenced then we don't depend
on
48 matches
Mail list logo
