Community
Participate
Working Groups
While studying bug 457071, noticed we are inconsistent with "legal files" (about files) we "copy up" to the root of products (e.g. SDK, Platform binary). Appears we have been doing only (most) linux versions, not windows, not aix, not s390 ... only recently ppc64le and macosx. So, first question, do we need to do this at all? I thought only thing that *had* to be at "root" was the "EUA"? If it does *have* to be, is there a need to fix it in 442? Lastly, in Mars, I believe we added an "SWT Feature", right? If so, that would be the place to specify "root files". See org.eclipse.platform-feature for a partial example, where is has a rootfiles folder, and its build.properties says root=rootfiles. It is a partial example, since it is for all platforms. SWT would need folders, and build.properties entries similar to root.macosx.cocoa.x86_64=rootfiles/macosx.cocoa.x86_64 The reason it would be an advantage to do from SWT feature, instead of our "build infrastructure" is that 1) then anyone who builds "swt feature" gets them, even if they use a different "product build", and 2) we have less "cross-repository" copying going on, which makes the build fragile and monolithic.
Dani, I made my statement about what goes in 'root' from section 4 of https://eclipse.org/legal/guidetolegaldoc.php Is there any other reason we make more than that available?
Arun, just FYI for now ... unless you know of a reason why we copy these legal files to "root"?
> "legal files" (about files) There's the about.html, the notice.html and the license.html. If I recall correctly every plug-in (also branding plug-ins and fragments) is supposed to have the about.html and every installable piece (e.g. SDK build) needs the notice.html in the root (not about.html, no license.html). Also no about.html in the features, but there we need the license.html. Not sure whether that helped. For a final answer I would check with the legal team before doing any clean up.
Perhaps we used to do it, because we had swt executable files in "root" (e.g. swt*so files. Arun, we do not do that at all anymore, right? For any platform? I noticed, for example, looking back at "3.5" release in archives, for linux x86_64, we had eclipse/libcairo-swt.so eclipse/about_files/ eclipse/about_files/mpl-v11.txt eclipse/about_files/IJG_README eclipse/about_files/pixman-licenses.txt eclipse/about_files/about_cairo.html eclipse/about_files/lgpl-v21.txt But, now, with no swt executables "in root", I'm near positive we don't need it. I did confirm they are also included in the fragment jar (as would still be required). Am CC'ing Janet and Sharon, in case they remember some historical agreement or reason that we would/should include any additional legal files in "root", other that the two mentioned in the "Guide to Legal Documents"? But, with no swt executables in root, I'm pretty sure we can use the "standard layout" in https://eclipse.org/legal/guidetolegaldoc.php This would simplify our build quite a bit. We won't change Luna, since we're close to done with SR2. But, suggest we change it in Mars M5, unless we hear differently from Janet or Sharon. Janet or Sharon, this effectively gives you a deadline of one week to "speak up". If you need longer than that, let me know a reasonable date. Otherwise, I'll plan on removing that extra overhead in our builds. Thanks,
(In reply to David Williams from comment #2) > Arun, just FYI for now ... unless you know of a reason why we copy these > legal files to "root"? David, I'm not too sure about the reason for doing this originally, but I can affirm that there are no swt executables in root anymore. There was the cairo related library which was shipped along with eclipse earlier for supporting platforms which did not ship with libcairo but all the currently supported platforms are expected to satisfy the dependency on libcairo on their own and we have removed libcairo-swt.so and associated files... (In reply to David Williams from comment #0) > Lastly, in Mars, I believe we added an "SWT Feature", right? No, SWT still does not have a feature as such, all we did was to create a mechanism which ensures that the host bundle and the platform-specific fragments are created with the same qualifier (so that p2 can resolve the dependency while installing). Hope this clarifies things up a bit!
Thanks Arun, all you've said is still consistent with us "getting rid" of the extra copy. Will make our "product build" POMs a lot cleaner. Thanks again.
http://git.eclipse.org/c/platform/eclipse.platform.releng.aggregator.git/commit/?id=d96eb09a648544058beb75a16a4b611d013bac9f With above commit I removed the "copy" of legal files into root.
