RE: [eclipse-pmc] Documenting dependencies on operatingsystems andJRE's

[John Arthorne <John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx>]

For the JRE, I think you have a good
point and we should probably just declare Java 5 rather than 1.4.2. I was
thinking that some of our downloads actually still work on lower versions,
but on further thought I don't think that's important. I.e., it is possible
to run SWT on 1.4.2 but I think it's sufficient to just say our project
has a pre-requisite on Java 5 to cover all the bases here.

For QNX, I don't actually know the version
but I can attempt to find that out. We do actually still build and deliver
SWT for QNX every day, for example:

http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops/I20100119-0800/download.php?dropFile=swt-I20100119-0800-photon-qnx-x86.zip

It is not a reference platform because
it only runs SWT rather than the entire platform, but we do build and ship
it so thought I might as well throw it in the list...

John

"Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

01/20/2010 05:15 PM

Please respond to
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx

To	<eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	RE: [eclipse-pmc] Documenting dependencies on        operatingsystems        andJRE's

Perfectly prepared, as always
- I bow to you, John :)
 
+1 for going the path of least
resistance and work on this one, your list makes perfect sense.
 
Except I'm still surprised about
QNX, it's neither a reference platform nor on the list of ZIPs we build...
... and it's odd declaring a pre-req
on J2SE-1.4 when the current list of reference platforms does not
include any J2SE-1.4 one any more.
Perhaps we should continue running automated tests on ONE
J2SE-1.4 platform and declare
that as reference too?
 
Martin

---

From: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Arthorne
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:50 PM
To: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [eclipse-pmc] Documenting dependencies on operatingsystems
andJRE's


Yes, I have had contact with the EMO and they advised me to enter the CQ's.
I don't just invent work for myself ;) 

I also don't see much point in documenting the obvious and don't see the
particular risk, but it seemed easier to just enter a blanket CQ with this
list than to debate it with them further.  We do have CQ's for specific
windowing and browser libraries we invoke such as GTK, Mozilla, etc, but
we don't currently document our references to the core operating system
itself. Since it appears to be acceptable, I prefer just saying a general
dependency like "Windows XP" rather than further listing specific
OS libraries we invoke. I made the suggestion that they publish a list
of "pre-approved" exempt pre-requisites for the most obvious
things (operating systems, JREs), so that projects don't have this additional
hoop to jump through. 

I gathered the list below from looking at our most recent integration build.
I'm not attempting to capture historical information, but just what we
intend to reference in the Helios release. 

John

"Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

01/20/2010 04:07 PM

Please respond to
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx

To	<eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	RE: [eclipse-pmc] Documenting dependencies on operating systems        andJRE's

Hi John, 
  
have you had contact with the EMO already regarding this "documenting
exempt pre-reqs" 
process? As per the policy you cited, the policy is only meant as a "framework
for interpretation". 
  
So before we go into great lengths entering CQ's which are hard to keep
exact, let's ensure we 
know what is really needed. I personally do not see much value in documenting
the obvious. 
  
For instance, in terms of the Linux kernel, do we already document pre-reqs
like X Window, 
GTK+, ... or, what was the last version of Eclipse that was actually known
to run on QNX? 
Where should we start and where should we end? 
  
In my understanding, the policy was made to ensure that commercial adopters
of Eclipse 
technology are not forced into downloading / bundling dubious additional
software that is 
nowhere documented. In terms of the OS and core UI libs, I do not see such
a risk. 
  
Martin

---

From: eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Arthorne
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:38 PM
To: eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [eclipse-pmc] Documenting dependencies on operating systems
andJRE's


It has come to my attention that we must enter CQ's for all dependencies
on third party software that we reference, including operating systems
and JRE's [1]. I had previously thought that exempt pre-reqs didn't require
a CQ. Furthermore, the policy says: 

"These discussions and decisions must occur transparently either via
email on the public PMC mailing list, or in the minutes of meetings distributed
to the public PMC mailing list." 

I am writing this email to satisfy the above requirement. I would like
to declare an "exempt pre-req" dependency for the Eclipse project
on the following: 

Windows (CE, XP, Vista, or 7) 
Linux Kernel 2.6 
Mac OS X 10.5 or greater 
Sun Solaris 10 or greater 
HPUX 11i v2 or greater 
IBM AIX 5.3 or greater 
QNX Photon 
Java Runtime Environment 1.4.2 or greater 

Since the CQ deadline for Helios is Feb. 5th, I'd like to submit a CQ for
these as soon as possible. Please respond here with any comments, concerns,
additions, or corrections. If I hear no objections or corrections before
February 1st, I will assume all is well and I will enter the CQ.

John 

[1] http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf_______________________________________________
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