|Re: [tools-pmc] [CQ 3384] autoconf support files Version: varies|
Hi,According to Eclipse legal, the PMC needs to make a determination as to whether this dependency is a "works-with" or "pre-req" (see http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf for more details).
To summarize the situation, PTP requires the following components to be distributed as C source code:
- a parallel debugger - a resource manager agent to interface to the IBM PE system - a resource manager agent to interface to the LoadLeveler job scheduler - a resource manager agent to interface to the SLURM job schedulerThe components are distributed as source code because maintaining binary builds for all possible architectures is impractical (we did this for early releases of PTP and found that it quickly became a support nightmare.) Distributing as source code overcomes some problems, but introduces others. In particular, building from source is complicated because of the dependencies on pre-installed system software and libraries. To overcome this, we currently use the autoconf/automake tools to manage the build dependency issues.
Unfortunately, autoconf/automake requires a small number of files be distributed with the source code in order to correctly configure and build the source. Nearly all of these support files are GNU licensed, but include the following license exemption:
# As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you # distribute this file as part of a program that contains a # configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under# the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.
One other file is licensed under the MIT public license.I believe these dependencies fall into the "exempt pre-req" category for the reasons listed in the CQ, but now throw it open to discussion by the PMC.
I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have about this CQ. Thanks, Greg this CQ is to approve On Jul 21, 2009, at 6:33 AM, emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3384 Barb Cochrane <barb.cochrane@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|new |awaiting_pmc Flag|PMC_Approved+ |--- Comment #8 from Barb Cochrane <barb.cochrane@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-21 09:31:14 ---(In reply to comment #7)Thanks Greg. The process for reviewing "exempt pre-reqs" is documented in theBarb,I'd say this this falls into the "exempt prereq" category for the followingreasons:- the third party software is required for the software to work correctly (inthis case it is required for installation rather than operation) - the third party software is pervasive - it is probably impractical to undertake an IP review Greglink on comment6, I would very roughly summarize it as follows:1) PMC has a transparent discussion and conclusion on PMC mailing list (please see link for details regarding topics for consideration, in addition to anyother items the PMC and project may identify)2) PMC updates this CQ with a note that the discussion has happened, a link toit, and a vote (+1, -1) 3) EMO votes on this CQI will reset the vote and mark this CQ in "awaiting PMC" state until we see anupdate that the discussion has happened on the PMC mailing list. Auto-Generated Text: IPTeam awaiting response from PMC. -- Configure CQmail: http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the CQ. _______________________________________________ tools-pmc mailing list tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
Back to the top