Hi, On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > On 4/12/12 11:18 PM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: >> ...See [1] for details - binary MPL dependencies are ok. > > I'm still trying to understand this. Based on my reading and recent > discussions, MPL binaries should not be checked into the trunk and should > not be downloaded by the source package build script unless the user is > first given a choice, and therefore can only be used for optional features....
The "must be optional" bit is discussed at [1] as well but MPL is not affected by it - it is ok to have dependencies on MPL stuff as long as those dependencies are to an MPL binary, as opposed to MPL source code (see [1] for why that is so) and as long as that dependency is "appropriately labeled". > > ...If I got that right, would running compiler tests be considered optional? > Currently, playerglobal.swc is under MPL but is required and currently > downloaded by the build script without a choice to opt-out (because nothing > would build without it).... IMO, running compiler tests falls into the "build tools" category which is also addressed at [1], and which has less restrictions than dependencies that are required to *run* our product. > >... I think the link does indicate that playerglobal.swc can be put in a > convenience binary distribution. Is that right?... > Yes, it is ok to distribute a binary MPL dependency as a convenience (like an additional -deps archive), as long as the Flex source release that we vote on does not contain such binaries. -Bertrand [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
