Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [eclipse-pmc] Re: FW: [tools-pmc] Request to approve XULRunner as an exempt pre-req
Agreed. the platform use of xulrunner is a works with IMHO. The vast majority of platform users never need or run xulrunner and everything is fine. if they want to use this extra feature that integrates xulrunner then of course they need xulrunner. As David points out, ATF is different cause its entire being is based on this (well, more or less) so, like gcc for cdt, it needs it and should be an exempt prereq 


Jeff


On 2009-11-04, at 3:30 PM, David M Williams wrote:


Oh, what have I started. :)

I will say that in my chats with the Platform, I think they (rightly)
count their dependency as a "works with" type of dependency, as per

http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf


and I get the impression CQs do not have to be open for "works with"
dependencies ... but, yes, they should be in IP Log (and it probably is, 
though I haven't checked).

Wayne can clarify if I've gotten the wrong impression about the CQ for
"works with" dependencies.

And "works with" is a little different than the "exempt pre-req" we're
discussing in Tools PMC. The primary difference is the ATF function pretty 
much won't work at all without it.
Also, of course, each Project must document and get approved their own IP, so technically what the Platform does would not directly impact our Tools PMC work. Precedents can help, but there are sometimes subtle differences. 


Hope that helps,






From:
Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, eclipse- pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx 
Date:
11/04/2009 02:38 PM
Subject:
[eclipse-pmc] Re: FW: [tools-pmc] Request to approve XULRunner as an 
exempt pre-req
Sent by:
eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx



I think our process may have broken down here a bit.
In order to use third-party software from an Eclipse project, we need to 
have a CQ requesting that it be declared an exempt pre-req (i.e. the
user must have it installed on the machine for the Eclipse code to work) or as a Works-with (i.e. if the software is there, the Eclipse software 
will use it).

Anthony, can you please make sure that a CQ gets created on behalf of
eclipse.platform. I'm pretty sure that we can get the EMO(ED) to sign
off on it and make things right.

Thanks,

Wayne


*From:* tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Anthony Hunter
*Sent:* November-04-09 11:16 AM
*To:* Tools PMC mailing list
*Subject:* Re: [tools-pmc] Request to approve XULRunner as an exempt
pre-req



Hi Team,

1+, the SWT team also requires XULrunner be installed, see
http://www.eclipse.org/swt/faq.php#howusemozilla , so this really is
no different.

Cheers...
Anthony
--
Anthony Hunter mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
Software Development Manager
IBM Rational Software: Aurora / Modeling Tools
Phone: 613-270-4613


Inactive hide details for Jeff McAffer ---2009/11/03 09:49:00 AM---+1
XULRunner is dominant in this space and should be an exemJeff McAffer
---2009/11/03 09:49:00 AM---+1 XULRunner is dominant in this space and 
should be an exempt pre-


From:




Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


To:




Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>


Date:




2009/11/03 09:49 AM


Subject:




Re: [tools-pmc] Request to approve XULRunner as an exempt pre-req

------------------------------------------------------------------------




+1  XULRunner is dominant in this space and should be an exempt pre-
req.  There are really no other choices.


Jeff

On 2009-11-01, at 4:27 PM, David M Williams wrote:


PMC Colleagues,

The ATF project would like to require ("pre-req") XULRunner to be
installed by users of ATF since for many of their main functions to
work,
such as debugging, css outlines, etc. it is required.

As per Eclipse's Third Party Dependencies Policy, for them to do
this, the
Tools PMC and the EMO must agree that is the correct classification
for a
pre-req, which would not go through IP review. See Third Party
Dependencies Policy for complete details, but the section specific to 
'exempt pre-reqs' is as follows:

[...]
3. All "pre-req" dependencies must be declared to and approved by
the EMO.

4. "pre-req" dependencies fall into two cases: "exempt pre-req" and
"non-exempt pre-req". This
determination is made by the EMO with input from the relevant PMC and 
project leadership.
a. A pre-req may be classified as "exempt" by the EMO if the
software is
pervasive in
nature, expected to be already on the user's machine, and/or an IP
review
would be
either impossible, impractical, or inadvisable. Exempt pre-reqs can be 
approved for use
by the EMO without IP review. Examples: Windows XP, Sun JRE.
However, an
exempt
 pre-req may be disallowed by the EMO at its discretion.
[...]

I think XULRunner, in a generic form, qualifies as an exempt pre-req
since
it is pervasive. It is distributed with most or all Linux
distributions,
and is a sub-component of Firefox, a wide-used browser with is readily 
available for all major platforms and architectures.

The ATF team will submit JavaXPCom in a CQ and they will distribute
that,
for major platforms and architectures, as a fragment for one of their 
plugins (or eventually from the Orbit project). JavaXPCom is a
relatively
small interface to XULRunner APIs (approx. 1000 files) so it is
feasible
to review and distribute it. It is this distribution of this interface 
that allows them to interact with XULRunner in a more generic
fashion and
make use of what ever happens to be installed on a users machine.
That is,
they would not need a specially compiled version of XULRunner.
(There will
of course be some limits, as to exact version, etc., but that's
currently
unknown and would not substantially change the status or request to
consider XULRunner as an exempt pre-req.) See also CQ 3551 for some
other
discussion of this general issue.

If we, the Tools PMC, agree with the exempt pre-req classification,
then
the ATF Project can take this forward for approval by the EMO.

To document approval, please respond with +1 to this list.

If you disagree, or would like to discuss more, please raise the
issues
here, in the CCQ 3551, or set up a phone call to discuss in more
detail.

Thank you,


_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc


_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc


_______________________________________________
eclipse-pmc mailing list
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc



_______________________________________________
eclipse-pmc mailing list
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc

Back to the top