Re: [iot-pmc] CQs for Paho

[Wayne Beaton <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

1) Per the Guidelines for the Review of Third Party Dependencies, you need EMO approval for an exempt pre-req dependency. Open a CQ and indicate that you are seeking an exemption; the IP Team will guide you through the process.

5) When you open the works-with CQ indicate in a comment that you seek to have the declaration for all versions. That should do it.

2,3&4 might be questions for the IP Team.

HTH,

Wayne

On 16/12/15 01:24 AM, Julien Vermillard wrote:

Adding EMO: can you help us to answer Ian questions ?

Thanks

Julien

Le mer. 9 déc. 2015 10:09, Julien Vermillard <jvermillard@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

Hi Ian,

1) for prerequisite exemption, I think we need EMO go. (Wayne can you help us here?)

2) I think you are right

3) We should explore if it can be an exempt (like POSIX std lib or any other OS and runtime)

4) I think compiler should be treated as other tools

5) No just one version should be fine I think (Wayne?)

Anyway the doc https://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/Contribution_Questionnaire for CQ is very Java/OSGi oriented and it's quite difficult for IoT project with a feet in the device to understand what is expected from them.

We should try to clear up things and give clear an concise guidelines for the question Paho is having because I think Wakaama and Tinydtls have the same questions.

--
Julien Vermillard

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Ian Craggs <icraggs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello PMC,

apparently I have been missing some key information about CQs that are needed for Paho.   I had been working on the assumption that if we didn't use a library within the Eclipse infrastructure, nor distribute it, that a CQ was not needed.   I have now found and reviewed the document:

https://eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf

and have some questions about it and the relationship to Paho.

1) Is there a list of exempt prerequisites somewhere, or is that determination made on a per project basis?  Was that part of the initial IP review for individual components (Python and .Net clients for example)?  We have no separate CQ for the Python interpreter, .Net runtime or standard Linux libraries amongst others.

2) The embedded client for Paho has code to use network and timer libraries for Linux, TI cc3200, ARM mbed, Arduino and FreeRTOS so far.  To work on a particular operating system, those calls have to be used, although using Linux is an alternative.  These seem to fall into the category of a) ii), works-with dependencies: a choice of implementations is available, but at least one is a prerequisite (which could be Linux).   What does the PMC think?

3) For each of these OS platforms, the embedded client also uses standard C library functions like memcpy().  These are provided by the OS or platform.  Do I need to submit a CQ for the whole OS/standard library for each platform?

4) Is the compiler used in each case also a dependency?  (Whether or not it is used in the Eclipse build infrastructure, or to build binaries which are distributed).

5) For each works-with dependency, do we need a separate CQ for every possible version of the dependency?  That seems impractical; if not, is there some principle we use?

Thanks

--
Ian Craggs
icraggs@xxxxxxxxxx                 IBM United Kingdom
Paho Project Lead; Committer on Mosquitto

_______________________________________________
iot-pmc mailing list
iot-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-pmc

--
Wayne Beaton on behalf of the Eclipse Management Organization
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation