>
> I’m concerned that I don’t see any indication that release contains a
> dependancy on Category X software. This dependancy is going to be included
> in the convenance binary right? Is my understanding of this correct? If so
> this may come as a surprise to users? How will they be informed of this?
Yes. The LGPL runtime will be bundled in the convenience binary of Weex. In
our *next release*, the LGPL runtime will be decoupled convenience binary.
Users would include both weex_sdk and Webkit(Actually, we only use the
JavaScriptCore of Webkit) together like following:
<dependency>
<artifactId>weex_sdk</artifactId>
</dependency>
<dependency>
<artifactId>webkit</artifactId>
</dependency>
I think user would understand that they must include a LGPL runtime(Or any
other Javascript interpretator they like) in this way.
Best Regards,
YorkShen
申远
Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> 于2019年7月10日周三 上午7:52写道：
> Hi,
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> I checked:
> - incubating in name
> - signature and hashes fine
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - LICENSE and NOTICE files fine
> - No unexpected binary files
> - Source file have ASF headers where needed (although rat is a little
> noisy so may of missed one)
> - Didn’t try to compile
>
> I’m concerned that I don’t see any indication that release contains a
> dependancy on Category X software. This dependancy is going to be included
> in the convenance binary right? Is my understanding of this correct? If so
> this may come as a surprise to users? How will they be informed of this?
>
> I would also suggest you use an apache.org email address to sign the
> artefact.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>
