Re: [orbit-dev] More libraries to come

[Roland Grunberg <rgrunber@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 15:35 +0200, Christian Pontesegger wrote:
> Hi group,
> 
> now that I know how to push bundles on orbit I intend to push some more 
> in the near future. The following candidates would be need for EASE:
> 
> * org.codehaus.groovy

Just to confirm, EASE isn't part of the Oxygen simultaneous release,
right ? So this request wouldn't be subject to that timeline (eg. CQ
deadline).

Would this be 2.4.6 (WW-CQ 11203) or would you be updating to the
latest (currently 2.4.10) ? It looks like groovy depends on
org.apache.ivy, org.apache.commons.cli, com.thoughtworks.xstream, and
org.fusesource.jansi. Some of these are in Orbit already, but things
like ivy and jansi don't appear to be so if they aren't optional
dependencies, they'll need to be included as well (CQs filed where
needed).

> * jeroMQ
> * org.apache.commons.codec v1.10.0 (v1.9.0 already available on orbit)

There seems to be quite a few projects that are also using
commons.codec 1.9, so I would probably mention on cross-project-issues
to make them aware in case they would like to update to it as well, or
maybe if there are concerns (ie. accidentally dragging in the wrong
one).

> Besides the license topics I am not sure which libraries would be 
> candidates for orbit or if projects are free to push whatever they need 
> and what fits to the eclipse licensing policy.

As long as the legal team approves the initial CQ for the package, it
should be fine to push into Orbit (another CQ is needed but those don't
depend on package license / code provenance).

Groovy and Commons Codec seem to be ASL 2.0 so they should be fine.
jeroMQ seems to be MPL 2.0, which I think should be ok but I can only
find references to Eclipse supporting up to MPL 1.1 so maybe those
documents just need updating.


> So if the above list would be ok to be hosted I would like to ask for 
> committer status on the Orbit project to maintain these libs.

This sounds good to me, but I would first look into seeing which
packages you need so that the relevant CQs can be filed and once that's
in place we could probably look at bringing them into Orbit.

It might also help to file a bug against Orbit so that progress on this
can be tracked.

Cheers,
-- 
Roland Grunberg