Re: [iam-dev] Re: [technology-pmc] Eclipse IAM: Possible need for 3rd party dependency approval
El 18/12/2008, a las 17:09, Wayne Beaton wrote:
It sounds to me like the "central Maven repository" is a potential
"exempt pre-requisite". Which means that IAM should be able to
include some knowledge of how to find and access that respository.
Ultimately, we'll need to get EMO approval on that.
That would be a manageable solution if approved by the EMO.
Further, my sense is that by adding a link to another repository (or
however it is that you do this sort of thing), the user is giving
IAM explicit permission to access the archetypes available from that
I agree with that.
Other artifacts downloaded by maven would fall in the same category
(the user enters the information to locate them or otherwise requests
their use, so he is allowing IAM to work on his behalf).
FWIW, it's true that p2 can be used to install arbitrary things
without the user's consent. However, that's not how it *is* being
used (or rather how it should be used by an Eclipse project). A
company could take p2 and use it as part of their project to install
whatever they want; this would be an issue between that company and
their end users.
Of course do not support or encourage installing anything without the
user consent. It was my perception that by providing the information
to identify the archetype/artifact the user was already allowing
access. You summarized it perfectly above.
Does this make sense/help?
Sure. I think these can solve all the IP concerns being addressed and
can be managed by the IAM team. Thank you very much!
We only need EMO approval regarding the maven central repository. How
shall we proceed with this task?
Abel Muiño Vizcaino wrote:
El 12/12/2008, a las 19:58, Wayne Beaton escribió:
Does the user enter the URL for the Archetype, or is the URL
somehow embedded in the software?
If the URLs are provided by the user, then there should be no
It is a bit complicated... there is not such thing as "the URL".
The user only declares the archetype to use. That declaration is
then looked up in an artifact repository (by default maven central
repository, but it is considered good practice to use a corporate
"mirror"). The actual repository used depends on a set of rules set
by the end user.
I've been thinking that writing an overview of how IAM/maven
operates and relate that to the policy for 3rd party dependencies (http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf
) could help us moving forward. What do you think?
If the IAM project contains built-in URLs to existing
repositories, then we'll need a works-with CQ (probably one for
each URL, but this may require additional thought). We'll have to
get EMO agreement.
It should not be a problem from our side if it is limited to the
url or the maven central repository. However, as noted above, that
repository might not be used at all (and as stated previously, it
is impossible to review every possible artifact in a maven
In either case, the download needs to be obvious. We need IAM to
show a dialog saying something to the effect of "you're about to
download some code not vetted by the Eclipse IP process" or
something to that effect (it might be enough to say that the code
is "external"). If the thing being downloaded has a license
attached to it, the user needs to be given an explicit opportunity
to view and accept that license.
Technically, that can be done, although I'm very worried about the
resulting user experience. What would you consider "obvious"?
Showing the download progress? A note on the user interface?
FWIW, Buckminster and P2 both do this.
No attack intended on any of these projects.
But we use the P2 director (headless) application to assemble out
target platform (installing EPL'ed and non EPL'ed bundles) and it
does not show any license agreement.
And I strongly believe that this is the right thing to do (from an
end-user point of view, I've explicitly declared what I want to
use, so I know what I'm getting into).
iam-dev mailing list