Hi, the confusion about including binary dependencies in a source release may result from podling guideline documents like this
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-dependencies which contains sentences like: "A list should be compiled of the project's dependencies, including those shipped as binary libraries and those shipped as source together with the licenses for those dependencies." I know this is a draft document but people, like me, read this stuff searching for information. As a rather new member of the Apache community it's hard to identify which information is relevant and correct for a podling. At Apache Stanbol (incubating) we have the issue of one dependency that is dual licensed under AL20 and GPL. This dependency is not available from Maven central. Our idea was to include this dependency in the source release tar ball. We just define a local Maven repository and ship this to the user. The feedback from our mentors was that this should be okay. >From the ongoing discussions on this list I understand that this is a no go. But how did projects solved this kind of problem before without using Maven? Where did the dependencies come from if not included in the downloaded tar ball? Do we have to add a note and tell the user what she has to download prior being able to compile the software? Best, - Fabian -- http://twitter.com/fctwitt --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org