Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: FW: [tools-pmc] Request to approve XULRunner as an exempt pre-req

I think our process may have broken down here a bit.

In order to use third-party software from an Eclipse project, we need to have a CQ requesting that it be declared an exempt pre-req (i.e. the user must have it installed on the machine for the Eclipse code to work) or as a Works-with (i.e. if the software is there, the Eclipse software will use it).

Anthony, can you please make sure that a CQ gets created on behalf of eclipse.platform. I'm pretty sure that we can get the EMO(ED) to sign off on it and make things right.



*From:* tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Anthony Hunter
*Sent:* November-04-09 11:16 AM
*To:* Tools PMC mailing list
*Subject:* Re: [tools-pmc] Request to approve XULRunner as an exempt pre-req

Hi Team,

1+, the SWT team also requires XULrunner be installed, see , so this really is no different.

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

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



Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>



2009/11/03 09:49 AM



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.


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

tools-pmc mailing list

Back to the top