Pavel>what is more important we could do the job _consistently_
Pavel>with a lot _less_ packagers effort.
I think "testing" is the key answer here to get consistent results.
Pavel>* the build would be 1-step process
Pavel> Any thoughts?
This all reminds me the 14 competing standards (see [1])
Do you mean "1-step" as in "1-cpu-instruction"?
Is "./build.sh" a "1-step"?
Pavel> even patches from us to support pure open source build are not wanted
I'm afraid this ^^ is misleading.
Patches are welcome provided they include tests to cover the change.
No tests -> no acceptance. It is in line with typical development
model, isn't it?
Pavel>_Open_ distribution¹
Pavel> By FOSS source I mean software which
Pavel> _anybody_ can read, study, copy, modify, distribute
Can you tell us if org.osgi.enterprise complies with your definition
of "open distribution"?
Just in case you say "no", see [2] (download jar and note that sources
are in OSGI-OPT folder) for complete source code that is available
under Apache 2.0 license -> you can read, copy, modify and distribute
it with no problem.
Taking that into account, why do you think "org.osgi.enterprise" is
not "open distribution"?
1: https://xkcd.com/927/
2: http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.osgi/org.osgi.enterprise/5.0.0
Vladimir