On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 06:43AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > Brane, > > Thanks for your comments, I believe I addressed them below. If there are no > more comments, I will produce another release today. > > 1. Git Tag: release-1.0.0-RC2 (I think you missed it) > 2. DISCLAIMER.txt is added. > 3. licenses folder was removed. > 4. executable bit on the text files will be fixed (good catch) > 5. Instructions for RAT and maven build are added in DEVNOTES.txt: > > Maven Build Instructions > ======================== > To build Ignite project (without running tests) use: > > mvn clean package -DskipTests
I believe you need to specify -P-release otherwise you'll step on the same git issues, that I did. Or perhaps better yet, release profile shouldn't be set as defatul? > and look for ignite-fabric-<version>.zip at ./target directory. > > > Apache RAT Instructions > ======================= > To check license headers use: > > mvn clean validate -Pcheck-licenses > > For more information (exclude list and etc.) see "check-licenses" profile > in pom.xml. > > D. > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > > > [I hope this finally gets to the list] > > > > On 06.03.2015 09:18, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > > I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to: > > > http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/ > > > > > > The following changes have been made: > > > > > > - The RAT issues found before were fixed. > > > - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under > > docs/wiki > > > folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header, > > should > > > they?) > > > > > > Please start voting. > > > > > > +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 > > > 0 - don't care either way > > > -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain why) > > > > > > -1 for the reasons described below. > > > > > > 1. I can't find which tag or commit the release package was made from. > > Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. > > > > 2. I couldn't find a rat-excludes file in the release package or on the > > master branch, so I made a best guess at which files would be listed > > there; but RAT flags many files in ./docs/wiki and ./modules that do not > > have a license header or have invalid/unknown licenses. > > > > I'm quite surprised by the number of non-Apache licensed files in > > ./modules. I believe we talked about optional dependencies in the past > > (see, e.g., Message-ID: <[email protected]>), buy I'm not sure > > if it was clear enough: > > > > * It is perfectly OK to have code that depends on libraries that have > > an incompatible license (GPL is one such, for example), as long as > > the dependency is optional > > * It is fine to have the dependency itself in the repository for the > > convenience of developers; however, > > * Such dependencies must not be packaged in the release. > > > > Anything in the source package must be listed in NOTICE and LICENSE; > > code under GPL or similar > > incompatible licenses must *not* be distributed in an Apache release. > > The build system can download the sources and/or libs/jars if the user > > explicitly requests them. The build instructions, or the build scripts > > themselves, should clearly inform the user that, by using such > > extensions, the license terms of the compiled binary may change > > significantly from the provisions of the ALv2. > > > > Example: Subversion has the provision to build a repository back-end > > that uses Berkeley DB. BDB was originally licensed under GPL, so > > Subversion's 'configure' script must be explicitly given the opion > > '--with-berkeley-db' to use it, even if it can find it in the default > > includes/libs location. Since version 6, BDB's license has changed, so > > we added another flag, '--enable-bdb6'. If the user invokes configure > > --with-berkeley-db but without the additional flag, and configure finds > > BDB 6+, it prints the following warning: > > > > Berkeley DB 6 was found, but not used. Please re-run configure (see > > ./config.nice) with the '--enable-bdb6' flag to use it, > > or explicitly specify '--disable-bdb6' or '--without-berkeley-db' > > to silence this warning. > > > > Please note that some versions of Berkeley DB 6+ are under the GNU > > Affero > > General Public License, version 3: > > https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/000056.html > > > > The AGPL-3.0 licence may impose special requirements for making > > available > > source code of server-side software. The text of the licence is: > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html > > http://opensource.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0 > > > > > > All of the above means that many parts of the ./modules directory should > > be excluded from the source package, and these optional dependencies > > should not be included in any binaries you provide. > > > > Exactly which licenses are incompatible is described here: > > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html > > > > > > 3. I'm trying to understand the intent of the ./licenses directory. The > > files there seem to be instructions for IDEs to add the required license > > headers to source files. I don't think this should be part of the > > packaged source release, though of course there's nothing wrong if it is. > > > > > > 4. Finally, I didn't find any instructions for building Ignite from > > source, only installation instructions that assume it's already built. > > Whilst telling people how to build from source isn't strictly required, > > heh, Iwould expect to find at least a tiny hint. > > > > -- Brane > >
