-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 04/22/2015 12:31 PM, Laszlo Hornyak wrote: > Hi Wido, > > I should have read the git log first :-) > > No license issues and no code change needed. All I want to have is > rados-java in the central maven repository for two reasons: - > central is the most reliable service - we can not upload our > artifacts to central until we have a dependency on other > repositories, and therefore users and developers are not able to > reuse > > I will send you a PR for the pom file. This is needed in order to > compliy central repository upload policy, no functional changes, > only meta-data. > Got it! I merged the PR. > And then, let's see.. do you own the repository in central repo? > Basically either you can upload or I can upload for you if you give > me permission, in any case I will try to help. > No, I don't have one. You have my permission to upload rados-java to your repo so that it can get into maven central. Wido > Best regards, Laszlo > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Wido den Hollander > <w...@widodh.nl> wrote: > > > > On 04/21/2015 09:12 PM, Laszlo Hornyak wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have uploaded the libvirt dependency to maven central and >>>> you should never get the maven failure if the libvirt.org >>>> server goes down, it will be downloaded from central. I have >>>> sent a PR (#180) to remove the libvirt.org repository from >>>> the build. >>>> >>>> With ceph.org the situation: - I have requested permission >>>> to publish like with libvirt, my request was rejected since >>>> the ceph.com team holds ownership - The only solution from >>>> here is to change the groupId of the dependency. - >>>> org.apache.* is very likely no go, it is owned by apache, >>>> artifacts are synchonrized to central through the apache >>>> repository, which is for apache artifacts only. - we can >>>> upload with a new groupId - suggestions are welcome >>>> > > I wrote the rados-java bindings and licensed it under the Apache > License . > > I choose com.ceph as a package since that was the easiest way. It > would be changed but I don't want to break all the existing code > for users. > > Any ideas? > > Wido > >>>> Regards, Laszlo >>>> >> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVQO7PAAoJEAGbWC3bPspCyoYP/0EOa/J73wT9jXHqWuy3Pp7i SeJKPYsKOUbE2lYbjbLmpOF0SB837YPkbwlZr8PT/XLPxojhpc+XxIe0RYlBcqmj sGdlxMI9yMyRg4kj4WlUdgWI68kNM1y/OZty4eSmlmpfzsXcyoo9JjvAd++Q0hr6 WB7/+Yq9OzNMJg50Ky935NfgQ75wRwKuANfpmowjixR93tPo0rMEFjFhZsyVdSG1 IlgzCWAyD7KOwPuB5KFPwsh7A0FfTNvuNUgcxFsPIjrJfJecBfUVXDppCXWBH+qS 0Zy6udsaCYSVFitGXCJS5kqd20IXlA040d9+l91AlOqCg+R6hWCo9u12Bgl26EiQ KunUA+t8qTvx2VQKoRyBOgeFn3tzsR5WtZ9pVgulOJJFQggShLDRdtKtkUC193MV vrBsPxmpM3By6NywfEt0N3JfPZ0t/aP2WVNxSMG+8kEL+tQhE1a6DucS/ZxJLYdu z3IFjioMz15+lDkUIs2WQcxZoXrzxGgh+2de4MXMsRO6/DmoGFiDrb+bO82NRliK HJQNckpMSEq/M6hSs4pyXR/zGpVE9qgt26ZqCqxGLenYIJwglNM+2Txm5exo0P4q knUmIBhQoirDecl7Uqpm0c0lh302GmvgNVVcKu9+0MKr/ObRG2KO3GKGWlbRkWtu VLF9PnlOu0sKoxIPwv3R =SbBH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----