Re: [tools-pmc] Request to approve XULRunner as an exempt pre-req

[Anthony Hunter <anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Team,

1+, the SWT team also requires XULrunner be installed, see http://www.eclipse.org/swt/faq.php#howusemozilla , so this really is no different.

Cheers...
Anthony
--
Anthony Hunter mailto:anthonyh@xxxxxxxxxx
Software Development Manager
IBM Rational Software: Aurora / Modeling Tools
Phone: 613-270-4613


Jeff McAffer ---2009/11/03 09:49:00 AM---+1 XULRunner is dominant in this space and should be an exempt pre-

From:	Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:	Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	2009/11/03 09:49 AM
Subject:	Re: [tools-pmc] Request to approve XULRunner as an exempt pre-req

---

+1  XULRunner is dominant in this space and should be an exempt pre- 
req.  There are really no other choices.


Jeff

On 2009-11-01, at 4:27 PM, David M Williams wrote:

> PMC Colleagues,
>
> The ATF project would like to require ("pre-req") XULRunner to be
> installed by users of ATF since for many of their main functions to  
> work,
> such as debugging, css outlines, etc. it is required.
>
> As per Eclipse's Third Party Dependencies Policy, for them to do  
> this, the
> Tools PMC and the EMO must agree that is the correct classification  
> for a
> pre-req, which would not go through IP review. See Third Party
> Dependencies Policy for complete details, but the section specific to
> 'exempt pre-reqs' is as follows:
>
> [...]
> 3. All "pre-req" dependencies must be declared to and approved by  
> the EMO.
>
> 4. "pre-req" dependencies fall into two cases: "exempt pre-req" and
> "non-exempt pre-req". This
> determination is made by the EMO with input from the relevant PMC and
> project leadership.
> a. A pre-req may be classified as "exempt" by the EMO if the  
> software is
> pervasive in
> nature, expected to be already on the user's machine, and/or an IP  
> review
> would be
> either impossible, impractical, or inadvisable. Exempt pre-reqs can be
> approved for use
> by the EMO without IP review. Examples: Windows XP, Sun JRE.  
> However, an
> exempt
>   pre-req may be disallowed by the EMO at its discretion.
> [...]
>
> I think XULRunner, in a generic form, qualifies as an exempt pre-req  
> since
> it is pervasive. It is distributed with most or all Linux  
> distributions,
> and is a sub-component of Firefox, a wide-used browser with is readily
> available for all major platforms and architectures.
>
> The ATF team will submit JavaXPCom in a CQ and they will distribute  
> that,
> for major platforms and architectures, as a fragment for one of their
> plugins (or eventually from the Orbit project). JavaXPCom is a  
> relatively
> small interface to XULRunner APIs (approx. 1000 files) so it is  
> feasible
> to review and distribute it. It is this distribution of this interface
> that allows them to interact with XULRunner in a more generic  
> fashion and
> make use of what ever happens to be installed on a users machine.  
> That is,
> they would not need a specially compiled version of XULRunner.  
> (There will
> of course be some limits, as to exact version, etc., but that's  
> currently
> unknown and would not substantially change the status or request to
> consider XULRunner as an exempt pre-req.) See also CQ 3551 for some  
> other
> discussion of this general issue.
>
> If we, the Tools PMC, agree with the exempt pre-req classification,  
> then
> the ATF Project can take this forward for approval by the EMO.
>
> To document approval, please respond with +1 to this list.
>
> If you disagree, or would like to discuss more, please raise the  
> issues
> here, in the CCQ 3551, or set up a phone call to discuss in more  
> detail.
>
> Thank you,
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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