On Jun 11, 2009, at 9:56 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Jun 11, 2009, at 4:52 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:22 AM, David
Jencks<david_jen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 10, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
Update:
The new assembly plugin and the regex in the source bundle seem
to be
working great. I have just one thing to resolve that I had
previously
overlooked: The source archive must also contain license and notice
files, even if svn doesn't.
I don't have the quote handy but Roy stated pretty clearly that
expected
checkout roots are sufficiently distribution-like to be required
to have
LICENSE and NOTICE files in svn.
I don't recall anything like that, in fact I understood the opposite,
that the svn roots are not sufficient to be source releases. If
that's
the case, they can't be considered distributions and thus don't fall
under the license and notice requirements.
There's a very long thread in jan 2008.... I'm not a master of mail
archives but it's here
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/thread
LICENSE and NOTICE files and SVN
and a particularly relevant post
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200801.mbox/%3ce9d17d5f-3a68-4968-ab26-49586d558...@gbiv.com%3e
-----
> Maybe you could point to some documentation that makes your point
> that the Apache svn repository is itself a distribution subject to
> LICENSE and NOTICE requirements.
The NOTICE file exists to fulfill our obligations under our license
and the licenses of any third-party code that we redistribute.
We try to be as proactive about that as possible. The NOTICE is
in subversion because the board added a notice that all of our
projects must carry. It needs to be in subversion when a
third-party something that requires such a notice is also within
subversion. Finally, each release package's NOTICE must reflect
all of the required notices of all of the parts within that package.
---------
Given this I think it's more in line with apache policy to fail if
the LICENSE/NOTICE files are missing than to try to guess at what
should be in and add them.
And one more thing :-D
Also, in general the LICENSE and NOTICE files apply to what's actually
in the artifact. So for the source-archive it's for the actual source
code in svn and shouldn't include any stuff for other code that may
get into binary artifacts by shading, unpacking, copying, generating,
including, etc etc. that the binary artifact legal files have to talk
about. I think it would be too confusing to try to generate separate
files for the source and binary artifacts.
thanks
david jencks
thanks
david jencks
So I think that verifying that the LICENSE and NOTICE files are
there is
enough, you don't need to add them.
thanks
david jencks
I need to understand better the default
resource bundle processing and how to pull the right pieces
together
into the assembly. Otherwise we are pretty close to getting all
this
staged and released.
--Brian
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Brian Fox<bri...@infinity.nu>
wrote:
Just to bring the thread back up in light of the recent
discussions of
plugin releases:
John has taken over the assembly release that contains the fix I
put in
for
the ASF stuff. I've been travelling a lot the past two weeks and
haven't
progressed much on the poms. Tomorrow or monday I should have
time to
take
the latest assembly stage and get the apache assembly descriptor
and all
the
poms updated and tested out.
Note that the work we are doing here is to make it easier to
define this
for
all maven (and later asf) projects and be inherited correctly.
This does
not
mean that all pending releases must be blocked waiting for these
changes.
You can make a source release quite easily with the existing
plugin
versions.
It's also worth nothing that now we know about the requirement,
we must
have
a source release, ignoring the requirement simply because we
didn't know
it
was a requirement in the past isn't an option.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Brian Fox <bri...@infinity.nu>
wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:25 PM, John Casey <jdca...@commonjava.org
>
wrote:
Brian Fox wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org
>
wrote:
On 26/05/2009, at 11:11 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
We're fixing the directoryscanner to allow regular
expressions in
addition
to the ant syntax.
Cool, but that's another release in the chain, right?
It's already to go, John is staging it now.
*Ahem* I'm still troubleshooting an IT issue dealing with these
regexes,
so once that's done I'll stage the release. Just didn't want
anyone
thinking
they'd missed the vote thread. ;-)
Yeah, that's what I meant ;-)
-john
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
