On Sunday 29 September 2013 13:31:11 Thiago Macieira wrote: > On domingo, 29 de setembro de 2013 20:17:09, Knoll Lars wrote: > > I don't fully agree with this. > > > > I certainly don't want us to add huge amounts of data into our > > repositories (as e.g. high resolution vector images). IMO it simply makes > > more sense to clearly state how you can get the data from upstream. > > I didn't say "add to the repositories". But we need to have a copy of them > in our infra. We could just add the files to our download server, in a > special area.
AFAIU, that would be enough, yes. > > In addition, I prefer not to copy upstream data if we can avoid it. > > Duplicating upstream data can also be harmful. I've seen patches appear in > > that data before that then do not get submitted back upstream (e.g. in our > > copy of libpng or harfbuzz). > > Agreed. If possible, don't have third-parties in the first place. Require > them from the system. > > Unfortunately, that reasonable request is not reasonable on Windows. > > > At most we should have a readonly copy of the sources on our FTP server, > > but I am not sure this really gives any benefits if what we use is a > > straight copy of an upstream package. > > That's what I am asking. > > The benefit is that we still have the original sources, should the upstream > disappear and close down. Also, I believe this is required in order to > fulfill our obligations under the LGPL: that's why every company shipping > an Android device must have a copy of the kernel sources in their servers > and it's not enough to point to kernel.org. +1 to the idea as presented here by Thiago. -- Geek Inside! Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
