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 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. The tarball release must be consistent; we cannot hide tarballs in SVN. Creating a directory with the Category-A tarballs that form a base of the release along with the base distribution is not really a problem. Some of them are not available upstream anymore. Pedro. > Even in its cleanest form, a Java program using Maven, a > release will > not build until the user first installs Maven. > > So no one (except maybe you) is arguing that our release > should be > buildable without any dependencies that are not included in > the > release. The real questions should be > thought of from the > developer's perspective: > > 1) What dependencies are mandatory and which ones are > optional, needed > only for specific features? > > 2) What are the obligations that a developer has when they > make use > of, or modify code in a particular dependency? > > 3) What do I need to provision my dev environment to build, > with or > without any given dependency. > > What we do at Apache, providing open source software for the > good, is > directed to making things simple for the downstream > consumers of our > releases. > > What we're doing with ext_sources is making #3 far easier, > for the > developer, compared to tracking down and fetching > dependencies from > other websites. And I think we've taken the proper > steps to provide > information, build flags, NOTICE and LICENSE files to cover > the other > two concerns. > > > > > > > >> > >>>> We also agreed to clean up as much as > possible of the dependencies to > >>>> category-b stuff over time. But that takes > time and is a lot of work. > >>> > >>> I admit this is very clear. I don't expect such > development to be > >>> a requirement for graduation but the transitory > situation of a source > >>> release that depends on carrying category-B > tarballs in SVN now is > >>> not really acceptable. > >> > >> well that is exactly the question. I don't know for > sure if it is a real > >> problem to have them in svn. > >> > >> svn or any other server would be equal as long as > we don't > >> change/improve the download part. > >> > >> So the real problem seems to be a different one. > >> > > > > I will address the Category-B + patches issue on > another email. > > > > >
