On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 deps package simply be generated from those > tarballs in svn. So long as the source release uses > > deps from the (downloaded from mirrors) deps package > > instead of directly from svn, AFAICT this project will > be in compliance with all legal and infra policies. >
So what would the status of the debs tarball be? Is it part of the release? Do we vote on it? It has cat-b source in it, so one would think that this could not be in a release, and not on the mirrors? Or is there a recognized exception for dependencies provided as a convenience? > Whether that's best practice is debatable, but I don't > believe it's so unreasonable that a rational person > would withhold their participation in the project over it. > > > HTH > > > > >>________________________________ >> From: Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> >>To: [email protected]; Jürgen Schmidt <[email protected]> >>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 >>>> 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 >>>> rolling our own. Having a working source >>>> distribution would help attract linux packagers, >>>> I think. >>>> >>>> >>> well if that is really the case you have failed on several levels >>> >>> - you didn't really have used or tried the source tarball >>> - you didn't gave the appropriate and necessary feedback >>> - you didn't helped to fix your concerns relating the source release. At >>> least it seems you have some concerns >> >>Sure, I am not perfect but you can't really blame the >>messenger if the package was broken. >> >>I have huge experience packaging stuff for my own selfish >>purposes in the past (BRL-CAD, FEM utilities, stuff like that), >>however I am not a ports committer/packager myself; >>I am a src committer. You can see my work in some sound >>drivers, the ext2fs implementation and some compiler >>updates. I have been very busy between kernel coding >>and the AOO SVN stuff to work also on the AOO >>packaging. >> >>The vast packaging work in FreeBSD has been done by >>Maho-san for several years and he has been so efficient >>I haven't really had to intervene other than to give some >>minor suggestions. He is a ports committer and I am so >>glad he has been around to take care of things. >> >>I have been busy on some updates and I only noticed >>a few days ago that we are not using the source tarballs >>provided by Apache. I can't really test everything behind >>a release and, with due respect, all I do is voluntary work >>so I do have to spend my time in other activities too. >> >>I am attempting to provide some feedback here but >>I would suggest you ask the guys doing Ubuntu or >>Debian packaging if they are using the src tarballs >>and how we can make the packaging easier. >> >>> That makes me really thinking ... >> >>Please stop imagining things. I know you guys are not >>happy about having to do extra reshuffling in the tree >>and playing with scripts to adapt things to what *I* >>think is the Apache way. In all honesty let's admit I had >>mentioned this was a grey area since a long time ago >>and I have even offered to step aside and let >>the project evolve on it's own. >> >>Pedro. >> >> >> >>
