[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [eclipse-pmc] Re: FW: [tools-pmc] Request to approve XULRunner as an exempt pre-req
|
Oh, what have I started. :)
I will say that in my chats with the Platform, I think they (rightly)
count their dependency as a "works with" type of dependency, as per
http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf
and I get the impression CQs do not have to be open for "works with"
dependencies ... but, yes, they should be in IP Log (and it probably is,
though I haven't checked).
Wayne can clarify if I've gotten the wrong impression about the CQ for
"works with" dependencies.
And "works with" is a little different than the "exempt pre-req" we're
discussing in Tools PMC. The primary difference is the ATF function pretty
much won't work at all without it.
Also, of course, each Project must document and get approved their own IP,
so technically what the Platform does would not directly impact our Tools
PMC work. Precedents can help, but there are sometimes subtle differences.
Hope that helps,
From:
Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date:
11/04/2009 02:38 PM
Subject:
[eclipse-pmc] Re: FW: [tools-pmc] Request to approve XULRunner as an
exempt pre-req
Sent by:
eclipse-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
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.
Thanks,
Wayne
> *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
> 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
>
>
> 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-
>
>
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
eclipse-pmc mailing list
eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse-pmc
