Confusion about inclusion of binary dependencies in source releases

[Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>]

Hi,

the confusion about including binary dependencies in a source release
may result from podling guideline documents like this

http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-dependencies

which contains sentences like: "A list should be compiled of the
project's dependencies, including those shipped as binary libraries
and those shipped as source together with the licenses for those
dependencies." I know this is a draft document but people, like me,
read this stuff searching for information. As a rather new member of
the Apache community it's hard to identify which information is
relevant and correct for a podling.

At Apache Stanbol (incubating) we have the issue of one dependency
that is dual licensed under AL20 and GPL. This dependency is not
available from Maven central. Our idea was to include this dependency
in the source release tar ball. We just define a local Maven
repository and ship this to the user. The feedback from our mentors
was that this should be okay.

>From the ongoing discussions on this list I understand that this is a
no go. But how did projects solved this kind of problem before without
using Maven? Where did the dependencies come from if not included in
the downloaded tar ball? Do we have to add a note and tell the user
what she has to download prior being able to compile the software?

Best,
 - Fabian

-- 
http://twitter.com/fctwitt

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org