[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [tools-pmc] [CQ 3384] autoconf support files Version: varies
|
Ok, if those files are being re-distributed, then I don't think the
"pre-req" issue applies, to them, or the CQ. I'll comment more in CQ.
On the otherhand, we (Tools PMC) may be asked to judge if autoconf itself
is ok to list as an exempt pre-req. So, let me ask another question about
that. (Pardon my ignorance if this is common knowledge).
Is autoconf '*nix' software only? Is there no Windows version of PTP? What
happens for other platforms?
From:
Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
07/30/2009 10:50 AM
Subject:
Re: [tools-pmc] [CQ 3384] autoconf support files Version: varies
Sent by:
tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
David,
I believe (but I could be wrong here) that the issue before the PMC is
determining if the 8 files are "exempt prereq" or not. This impacts on
the review because if they are not "exempt", then a full IP review
must be undertaken. Since the authorship of these files is unknown,
such a review is probably impossible.
The situation is slightly tricky because the dependency is on these
files, which are generated by autconf/automake, not on the autoconf/
automake tools themselves. So if in #1, "exempt prereq" also include
the files generated by autoconf/automake, I think we're good to go, as
#2 and #3 agree with my understanding.
Regards,
Greg
On Jul 30, 2009, at 1:21 AM, David M Williams wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand what's being requested here ... so, I'll
> give a
> long answer:
>
> 1.
> I think autoconf itself (http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/) is
> fine to
> specify as an exempt-prereq, since its pervasive (similar to a JRE,
> Operating System, etc.) and is simply used during the install.
>
> 2.
> But what's attached to the CQ is a zip of 8 files that will be
> distributed
> with your project code, as EPL, using the exception stated in the
> files:
>
> # 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.
>
> 3.
> And, in my opinion, it's up to the EMO legal staff to review those 8
> files, and agree those 8 files can be distributed with your project
> code
> as EPL (well, I guess 7 files as EPL, with the one exception of the
> install-sh file, which would stay as MIT license).
>
> If I understand those 3 points correctly, then +1 from me.
>
> Fellow PMC members, please document your agreement, or not, to this
> mailing list to satisfy the Eclipse Dev. Process, as documented in
>
http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf
>
>
> Let me know if we need a phone call to discuss or understand details.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To:
> Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:
> 07/29/2009 12:39 PM
> Subject:
> Re: [tools-pmc] [CQ 3384] autoconf support files Version: varies
> Sent by:
> tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Anybody have any comments? If not, I'd appreciate it if a PMC member
> would update the CQ as per point 2 below.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg
>
> On Jul 21, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Greg Watson wrote:
>
>> 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 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.
>>
>> 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)
>>>> Barb,
>>>>
>>>> I'd say this this falls into the "exempt prereq" category for the
>>>> following
>>>> reasons:
>>>>
>>>> - 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
>>>>
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>> 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:
> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tools-pmc mailing list
>> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
>
> _______________________________________________
> tools-pmc mailing list
> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tools-pmc mailing list
> tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
