Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [tools-pmc] [CQ 3384] autoconf support files Version: varies

Anybody have any comments? If not, I'd appreciate it if a PMC member would update the CQ as per point 2 below.



On Jul 21, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Greg Watson wrote:


According to Eclipse legal, the PMC needs to make a determination as to whether this dependency is a "works-with" or "pre-req" (see 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 scheduler

The 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.



this CQ is to approve
On Jul 21, 2009, at 6:33 AM, emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

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)

I'd say this this falls into the "exempt prereq" category for the following

- the third party software is required for the software to work correctly (in
this case it is required for installation rather than operation)
- the third party software is pervasive
- it is probably impractical to undertake an IP review


Thanks Greg. The process for reviewing "exempt pre-reqs" is documented in the
link 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 any
other items the PMC and project may identify)
2) PMC updates this CQ with a note that the discussion has happened, a link to
it, and a vote (+1, -1)
3)  EMO votes on this CQ

I will reset the vote and mark this CQ in "awaiting PMC" state until we see an
update that the discussion has happened on the PMC mailing list.

Auto-Generated Text:  IPTeam awaiting response from PMC.

Configure CQmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the CQ.
tools-pmc mailing list

tools-pmc mailing list

Back to the top