imo the 'distribution' you produce should come bundled with everything
you need to run it, it is very awkward to drop the distro on a bare
box and then have to install ant just to bootstrap that distribution
into a usable state
+1 to use ivy to not park jars in svn
+1 to have your official 'distribution' contain everything needed to run
jesse
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:10, Eric Evans <eev...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 23:32 -0500, Paul Querna wrote:
>> > Lack of java-devness showing: Can't the -bin tarball just include
>> the
>> > 'ivy-retrieve' step pre-done?
>> >
>> > At least then everyone will test the same -bin, significantly
>> reducing
>> > the lack of trusted path in problems 1 & 2.
>> >
>>
>> Sorry, forgot to finish with bits about the legal parts.
>>
>> Most (all?) the language about NOTICE and LICESE files is specifically
>> related to the source distribution, not the release artifacts -- as
>> long as anyone else can get the same binary artifacts from the source
>> that was voted on, what is actually contained in the binary artifacts
>> is much less concerning, as long as we do respect the licenses of the
>> things we include.
>
> I would love for this to be OK, but I'm skeptical that it is. Both the
> BSD and AL licenses explicitly state that you must include license and
> attribution when redistributing ("in Source or Object form").
>
>> C-dev-world: We build win32 binaries using msvc. We distribute them,
>> even distribute mod_ssl, which has a large dependency on OpenSSL, but
>> AFAIK we don't go around appending the entire OpenSSL License to the
>> httpd's LICENSE or NOTICE files?
>
> But you aren't actually shipping OpenSSL (in source or binary) are you?
> mod_ssl is only linked against OpenSSL?
>
> --
> Eric Evans
> eev...@rackspace.com
>
>
