Re: OS X package building environment available for testing

On 2/22/2012 2:54 PM, Fabian Keil wrote:
> Ian Silvester<[email protected]>  wrote:
>
>> On 2012-02-19, at 1:30 PM, Fabian Keil wrote:
>>
>>> Ian Silvester<[email protected]>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Ian, it occurred to me that this discussion could happen in
>>> public on the mailing list. If you agree to this, please reply
>>> to the list instead of in private.
>>>
>>>> So I've cleaned up my build environment
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> I'm guessing that David you are in the best position to confirm that
>>>> it can generate a Privoxy package correctly; Fabian please feel free
>>>> to confirm that it does not violate the GPL (I am relatively sure it
>>>> does not).
>>>
>>> I can't. Confirming GPL compliance requires knowledge of the
>>> targeted platform and the build environment and I'm not familiar
>>> with Mac OS X and the software required to create the package.
>>
>> Understood. The only software required outside of the module I've
>> developed is the same as is required for the existing osxsetup module,
>> it being PackageMaker (to build the OS X installation package file).
>> This software is supplied as part of Xcode, the de facto Apple software
>> development environment which, whilst not open source, is a free
>> download and included on OS X distribution media.
>
> Whether or not the download is free of charge doesn't matter,
> but if everything required to build the package from the
> sources provided is also included on OS X distribution media
> the "special exception" of §3 should apply, so that's good to
> know.
>
> If David comes to the same conclusion, that would be good enough for me.

The installer (PackageMaker) doesn't pollute the code base, and doesn't 
require special licensing.  We don't ship it; we use it in building 
something.  In fact that's what I started the install work with 
originally.  A developer needs to have it in order to make a package, 
but the results are unencumbered by any additional licensing.

>>                                                    I trust that this
>> doesn't present any issues; the fact that it's used by an existing
>> Privoxy project module should surely be enough? I recognise the
>> possibility that the existing module could be out of GPL compliance, but
>> how about the hundreds (thousands?) of other open source projects out
>> there that have OS X binary distributions? Surely they can't all be
>> wrong!
>>
>> Can anyone else make a definitive statement on this? I would hate to see
>> this distribution fail due to it's dependence on the fundamental piece
>> of software that generates the distribution file!
>
> That would be a shame, indeed.

No shame in it.  It's ok to use.

[snip]

> David, do you think the package is ready for release?

I just ran through it successfully, including installing the resultant 
package.  It looks great.  My only comment is in the readme, step 2 
references lines 43 and 45 of uninstall.command.  Due to the preamble 
changes, those lines are now 77 and 79.  The steps are familiar enough 
(down to the bugs in PackageMaker!) that it was easy to run through. 
Ian has captured what can be captured in code, and there are just some 
steps that need manual intervention (unless you want to go all out and 
do substitutions for the version number, for example).

Ship it!

- David


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning
Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing 
also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service.
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/