So again, I am convinced by your argument and the history trail of
reasoning behind it. Just feels that the solution that we might use
(and that others are using) and the desired ideal are pretty far apart
from each other.
Andrus
On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:43 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> Yeah I vaguely remember this discussion - http://markmail.org/thread/njray5dbazwcdcts
> and I have to agree with Roy's logic, which convinces me better
> than a mention of "policy" :-)
>
> Ok, so say we have a Maven build system that exports buildable
> source with poms... which, considering the reliance on a public
> Maven repo for dependencies may not be that "buildable" 6 months
> from now :-/ Even open-source Apache-licensed (but not ASF-managed)
> packages may disappear. How far can we go with that? (a good
> experiment would be to take a year old existing ASF package and
> trying to build it, say Geronimo or something of that level of
> complexity..)
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:28 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
>> It's one thing to state that it may not be a requirement to provide
>> buildable source, but it's quite a stretch to claim that we do
>> provide
>> buildable source immediately after a message stating "It is
>> practically impossible to do that as the build system is ... well,
>> complex" Taken to extremes, you could say that a jar file full of
>> classes is buildable source, since, with the right tools, you can
>> decompile the class files back to java code.
>>
>> But if you want to say that we're meeting the source build
>> requirement, consider this. It would mean that everyone voting +1
>> on a
>> release has somehow thrown a home-grown build-system on top of the
>> source release and successfully built it. Because that's the only
>> way an evaluator can be sure that the release has met the condition
>> and the release manager hasn't accidentally left out some required
>> piece of source. We wouldn't say that we know that the release
>> has a
>> valid checksum without checking it ourselves or that the release
>> has a
>> valid signature without checking it ourselves. Same goes for
>> building it.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 16, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Every ASF release must contain a source package, which must be
>>>> sufficient for a user to build and test the release provided they
>>>> have
>>>> access to the appropriate platform and tools. The source package
>>>> must
>>>> be cryptographically signed by the Release Manager with a detached
>>>> signature; and that package together with its signature must be
>>>> tested
>>>> prior to voting +1 for release. Folks who vote +1 for release may
>>>> offer their own cryptographic signature to be concatenated with the
>>>> detached signature file (at the Release Manager's discretion)
>>>> prior to
>>>> release.
>>>
>>> Actually, re-reading the above and it doesn't state a need of a
>>> working
>>> pom.xml or build.xml, just the source that is matching the
>>> binaries. In this
>>> respect we don't violate this. We do not provide a buildfile, but
>>> a Java
>>> developer will be able to build the source regardless (e.g. by
>>> writing
>>> build.xml himself, or importing sources in Eclipse).
>>>
>>> Andrus
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org
>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> On Aug 16, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
>>>
>>>> Every ASF release must contain a source package, which must be
>>>> sufficient for a user to build and test the release provided they
>>>> have
>>>> access to the appropriate platform and tools. The source package
>>>> must
>>>> be cryptographically signed by the Release Manager with a detached
>>>> signature; and that package together with its signature must be
>>>> tested
>>>> prior to voting +1 for release. Folks who vote +1 for release may
>>>> offer their own cryptographic signature to be concatenated with the
>>>> detached signature file (at the Release Manager's discretion)
>>>> prior to
>>>> release.
>>>
>>> Actually, re-reading the above and it doesn't state a need of a
>>> working
>>> pom.xml or build.xml, just the source that is matching the
>>> binaries. In this
>>> respect we don't violate this. We do not provide a buildfile, but
>>> a Java
>>> developer will be able to build the source regardless (e.g. by
>>> writing
>>> build.xml himself, or importing sources in Eclipse).
>>>
>>> Andrus
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Aug 16 2010 - 19:05:32 UTC