MPL dependencies (was: MXMLC now in trunk)

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> On 4/12/12 11:18 PM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ...See [1] for details - binary MPL dependencies are ok.
>
> I'm still trying to understand this.  Based on my reading and recent
> discussions, MPL binaries should not be checked into the trunk and should
> not be downloaded by the source package build script unless the user is
> first given a choice, and therefore can only be used for optional features....

The "must be optional" bit is discussed at [1] as well but MPL is not
affected by it - it is ok to have dependencies on MPL stuff as long as
those dependencies are to an MPL binary, as opposed to MPL source code
(see [1] for why that is so) and as long as that dependency is
"appropriately labeled".

>
> ...If I got that right, would running compiler tests be considered optional?
> Currently, playerglobal.swc is under MPL but is required and currently
> downloaded by the build script without a choice to opt-out (because nothing
> would build without it)....

IMO, running compiler tests falls into the "build tools" category
which is also addressed at [1], and which has less restrictions than
dependencies that are required to *run* our product.

>
>... I think the link does indicate that playerglobal.swc can be put in a
> convenience binary distribution.  Is that right?...
>

Yes, it is ok to distribute a binary MPL dependency as a convenience
(like an additional -deps archive), as long as the Flex source release
that we vote on does not contain such binaries.

-Bertrand

[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html