[rt-pmc] [CQ 3932] activation-1.1.jar Version: duplication of package (P

[emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx]

http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3932





--- Comment #6 from Glyn Normington <gnormington@xxxxxxxxxx>  2010-04-13 10:10:07 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> "To reach a baseline release of Virgo, we want to disrupt the existing build
> strategy as little as possible and that means Ant/Ivy needs to download the
> dependency bundles from the EBR."
> 
> I am going to cherry pick that statement out it seems to run counter to my
> understanding of releasing at eclipse.  Any release at eclipse needs to contain
> bundles that are signed by eclipse, so any bundle that is being redistributed
> in a downloadable from eclipse needs to only ever source jars (bundles) from
> within orbit or the like.
> 
> As an example for jetty it look us a long time to iron out the process in which
> we could release a distributable that could be downloaded from eclipse because
> we had to specifically _not_ pull anything from the central maven repository as
> it was not 'signed and cleared' by eclipse.  I suspect this situation is
> analogous to your EBR where it is a place to get dependencies.
> 
> So unless there is something else in play I don't know about I don't think your
> allowed to make an eclipse release (that is downloadable from eclipse) if your
> pulling jars from someplace other then the eclipse.org machines.  So if this
> bundle were approved and it was to be available in something being downloaded
> from eclipse.org it would have to be churned through the orbit system and
> signed by the eclipse signing key..and you would have to pull it from an
> eclipse.org machine during your build for it to be compliant.  Your ERB is off
> limits for anything being distributed from eclipse.org in this case.
> 
> Now if your not making an official eclipse release that is downloadable from
> eclipse.org then I think your ok to redistribute it (from somewhere else)...but
> the CQ is still required as it is a dependency required to build source that is
> checked into eclipse svn.
> 
> I think I have that distinction correct...if not Jeff can correct me!
> 

Point taken.

We may need to make the baseline release some sort of milestone or incubator
release in order to conform to Eclipse policy. However, I'd prefer to discuss
that topic later and probably in a more visible forum like virgo-dev so that
others can benefit from the discussion.


-- 
Configure CQmail: http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the CQ.