Skip to main content

[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

The Policy and Procedure for 3rd Party Dependencies document [1] states:
Any situation where Eclipse software is designed to call or otherwise invoke third party software - even through indirect means - creates a "dependency" on the third party software. Such
dependencies may require approval by the EMO.
Currently, our mechanism for getting this approval is through IPZilla. This has an added benefit of being a single place were we track all of these dependencies.

Please create the CQ. I can guarantee your safety.



Ed Merks wrote:

Speaking from personal experience with things like Hibernate for Teneo, a works-with dependency on an LGPL library, a CQ is still required in that case.

Jeff McAffer wrote:
Taking that argument ad ubsurdum, we should simply do away with the works-with notion because anyone could build a dependency on any part of the system so nothing is not a hard requirement. Does not work in practice IMHO.

As I said, its a judgement call on the part of the project leadership/PMC. If, on the whole, the project's shipping function still works and, on the whole, the project is reaching it stated goals and purposes without 3rd party function X then X could be considered a works-with dependency. While the project team may regret that their stuff cannot be used on Linux for browser based apps, it does not completely invalidate their efforts and the project output is broadly usable.
If it itches, scratch.  If it hurts.  Stop.


Jeff McAffer | CTO | EclipseSource | +1 613 851 4644
jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |

On 2009-11-04, at 4:19 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote:

Well, I have an RCP app that depends on the Browser widget, so I'd disagree with that.


On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

    The vast majority of the platform however does work.  Not being
    able to use the browser widget is not a big impact to the SDK or
    even SWT on linux IMHO.  Suspect there is not a single metric
    but more of a judgement call.  That is why the PMC and project
    leadership is involved in evaluating and approving these things.


    On 2009-11-04, at 4:00 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote:

    My understanding is that if you don't have xulrunner on linux,
    the SWT Browser widget doesn't work. I know that from first
    hand experience. So how much of your plug-in needs to be
    dependent before it qualifies for IP approval?


    On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Jeff McAffer
    <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

        Agreed.  the platform use of xulrunner is a works with
        IMHO.  The vast majority of platform users never need or
        run xulrunner and everything is fine.  if they want to use
        this extra feature that integrates xulrunner then of course
        they need xulrunner.  As David points out, ATF is different
        cause its entire being is based on this (well, more or
        less) so, like gcc for cdt, it needs it and should be an
        exempt prereq


        On 2009-11-04, at 3:30 PM, David M Williams wrote:

            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


            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,

            Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
            Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
            eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
            11/04/2009 02:38 PM
            [eclipse-pmc] Re: FW: [tools-pmc] Request to approve
            XULRunner as       an
            exempt pre-req
            Sent by:

            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

                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
                    such as debugging, css outlines, etc. it is

                    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
                    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
                     pre-req may be disallowed by the EMO at its

                    I think XULRunner, in a generic form, qualifies
                    as an exempt pre-req
                    it is pervasive. It is distributed with most or
                    all Linux
                    and is a sub-component of Firefox, a wide-used
                    browser with is readily
                    available for all major platforms and

                    The ATF team will submit JavaXPCom in a CQ and
                    they will distribute
                    for major platforms and architectures, as a
                    fragment for one of their
                    plugins (or eventually from the Orbit project).
                    JavaXPCom is a
                    small interface to XULRunner APIs (approx. 1000
                    files) so it is
                    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
                    unknown and would not substantially change the
                    status or request to
                    consider XULRunner as an exempt pre-req.) See
                    also CQ 3551 for some
                    discussion of this general issue.

                    If we, the Tools PMC, agree with the exempt
                    pre-req classification,
                    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
                    here, in the CCQ 3551, or set up a phone call
                    to discuss in more

                    Thank you,

                    tools-pmc mailing list

                tools-pmc mailing list
                tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>

            eclipse-pmc mailing list
            eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>

            eclipse-pmc mailing list
            eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:eclipse-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>

        tools-pmc mailing list
        tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>

    tools-pmc mailing list
    tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>

    tools-pmc mailing list
    tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>

tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>


tools-pmc mailing list

tools-pmc mailing list

Back to the top