Re: [oniro-pmc] Oniro v2,.0 release: relevant question

[Davide Ricci <davide.ricci@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Unless there are objections, I think the binary part can be postponed to post GA.

D

-----Original Message-----
From: Alberto Pianon <alberto@xxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: mercoledì 12 ottobre 2022 16:01
To: Davide Ricci <davide.ricci@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Andrei Gherzan <andrei.gherzan@xxxxxxxxxx>; agustin.benito@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxx; Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria.ext@xxxxxxxxxx>; amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; oniro-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Oniro v2,.0 release: relevant question

 From our side (compliance), a source only release would ease a lot our work, so that we may focus on continuing the toolchain development, and complete the audit on reference binary images with more ease and with another perspective (providing a reference compliance work for downstream users).

So I fully second it

Cheers,

Alberto

Il 2022-10-12 15:15 Davide Ricci ha scritto:
> At some point, Jun time frame, we thought we'd release binary OS 
> images and related packages updates feeds as a mean to stress /prove 
> our hawkbit integration.
> 
> I don't think we're there, any longer - and considering the emphasis 
> on an early release rather than a overly feature rich release - I 
> would feel comfortable in releasing goofy as a source only product and 
> leverage the released source base code for further investigation of 
> the binary OS images release process.
> 
> My 2 cents.
> 
> Cheers
> D
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrei Gherzan <andrei.gherzan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: mercoledì 12 ottobre 2022 15:01
> To: agustin.benito@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxx; 
> Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria.ext@xxxxxxxxxx>; Davide Ricci 
> <davide.ricci@xxxxxxxxxx>; amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: oniro-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx; alberto@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Oniro v2,.0 release: relevant question
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have understood as well that this is something we are aiming for in 
> this release. I'm adding Davide and an extra email for Amit that might 
> give us a better understanding of the reasoning and plans on this 
> topic for 2.0.
> 
> Andrei Gherzan
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Agustin Benito Bethencourt [mailto:agustin.benito@eclipse- 
>> foundation.org]
>> Sent: 11 October 2022 12:00
>> To: Andrei Gherzan <andrei.gherzan@xxxxxxxxxx>; 
>> amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxx; Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria.ext@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: oniro-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx; alberto@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Oniro v2,.0 release: relevant question
>> 
>> Hello Amit and Andrei,
>> 
>> since the beginning of the project onboarding into Eclipse 
>> Foundation, we have been working on the basis that we would not 
>> release any image
>> (binaries) on our first "release under EF".
>> 
>> There are several reasons for that, being the need to distribute 
>> non-OSI approved licensed code and even proprietary code without EF 
>> having any kind of legal relation with the copyright/patent holders, 
>> one of the major concerns that led us to put such constrain. The idea 
>> was to work on that direction for a second release.
>> 
>> The Oniro Platform Release Roadmap update presented to the PMC and 
>> the Oniro WG SC some days ago does not state any news on this front. 
>> No conversation in any public Oniro channel takes me to think that 
>> this assumption has been challenged.
>> 
>> Still, I keep hearing that there are plans to release images for 
>> Oniro as part of the Oniro v2.0
>> 
>> Can you clarify to me this point, please?
>> 
>> Best Regards
>> 
>> --
>> Agustin Benito Bethencourt
>> Program Manager | Eclipse Foundation
>> Eclipse Foundation: The Community for Open Innovation and 
>> Collaboration
>>