|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-reqHi 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: 613-270-4613Inactive 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-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
Back to the top