On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Pierre Joye <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Hannes Magnusson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Remi Collet <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Le 18/10/2013 08:13, Hannes Magnusson a écrit : >>> >>>> Am I understanding this correctly... If I don't care for Windows, and >>>> don't include a LICENSE file, then the peclweb package upload will >>>> still tell me to bug off and reject the package? >>>> Worst Idea Ever. >>>> >>> >>> This problem affects all downstream distribution. >>> >>> It's really up to a project to provide this file to allow downstream >>> users to respect the License term of the project. >>> >>> Else, it will means: ok, the sources are free, >>> but you can't distribute binaries of this. >>> >> >> PECL has never required anyone to allow binaries distribution of their work. >> It is completely up to me to do what I want with my own package. >> The only requirement for hosting a PECL package is that it is under >> PHP/BSD style licenses. >> >> If the author wants to take advantage of the Windows infrastructure >> then he may opt-in to do so, by fulfilling any requirements set by >> that procedure. >> The PECL system itself shall however not reject a completely valid >> package that has never done anyone any harm and has worked just fine >> over the past decade. This should be a secondary step for those who >> opt-in, which then says "hey, I see you want be to build a binary >> package. Sorry buddy, I am not legally allowed to do so unless you >> provide me with xyz". > > Well, now it does, for many very valid reasons and to keep PECL as the > place to distribute extensions, be for linux distributions, cloud > providers or windows binaries or using pecl install. > > This todo has been on our list for long, nothing to do with the > Windows build, it only happens that Anatol is working on the site for > version check (match between header and package.xml) and other sanity > checks.
And its _awesome_. Its great that we finally can provide Windows binaries and it "just happens". What is not great is if that addition rejects otherwise valid packages and forces 300+ packages to change something to be able to create new releases - not to mention, without a clear warning or headsup. Keep in mind PECL has been the place were we distribute _sources_. Not binaries. So any additional requirements for binaries cannot break existing infrastructure or force otherwise valid packages to change their ways. I'll bet you the vast majority will include whatever things is required for them to do binaries too, but we cannot blatantly forbid them to upload normal source packages. -Hannes -- PECL development discussion Mailing List (http://pecl.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
