Re: [ldap-sdk-discuss] Source code

[Alon Bar-L. <alo...@gm...>]

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Neil A. Wilson
<nei...@un...> wrote:
> On 05/25/2014 03:24 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 2:07 AM, Neil A. Wilson
>> <nei...@un...> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/09/2014 04:23 PM, Neil A. Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 05/09/2014 03:30 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you. Please make the checkstyle target optional, you can do this
>>>>> via condition using property on its target.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have just committed a change that allows checkstyle processing to be
>>> skipped if the "checkstyle.enabled" property is set with a value of
>>> "false"
>>> (e.g., "./build-se.sh -Dcheckstyle.enabled=false").
>>>
>>> I'm still not entirely sure why this is necessary, or even useful.  The
>>> only
>>> time it would possibly be of any benefit would be if you're maintaining
>>> your
>>> own fork of the LDAP SDK, in which case you could just update your own
>>> copy
>>> to not do checkstyle processing (or, alternately, you could just write
>>> code
>>> that meets the checkstyle requirements).  At any rate, the change wasn't
>>> difficult so it's there now.
>>>
>>
>> Thank you!
>> I was kind of hopping you remove the all of the binaries from the repo
>> and have this false by default.
>
>
> This is quite simply not going to happen.
>
> The repository is set up to make it as easy and convenient as possible for
> someone to build the LDAP SDK.  When you check out the SDK, all you need to
> do is run one shell script or batch file, and less than a minute later you
> have zip files and unzipped directories containing the Standard Edition and
> Minimal Edition.  You don't have to go hunting for any other dependencies or
> components and worry about potential version mismatch, which is something I
> personally find frustrating even if they aren't hard to find.
>
> If you have an aversion to using the libraries provided in the repository,
> then you don't have to use them.  But I'm not going to sacrifice convenience
> just to avoid offending your ideas about how an open source project should
> be run.  I have absolutely no flexibility on this matter and do not wish to
> discuss it any further.
>

Your call, of course. As long as you know how it looks like to other
parties when checking out what is to be GPL/LGPL source code and
surprised to find binaries, and these are used by default.

You are welcomed to offend my ideas, apart of these are not mine,
these well behave and best practises in the free open source
environment followed by thousands of projects. I would like to believe
that this is the reason you publish the code within FSF approved
license.

Anyway, thank you to allow not patching the code to make it build for
now without binary usage. I hope you consider the patches I sent when
things calm down, as they simplify the implementation you added, and
do not damage nor conflict with your cause.

Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev.