Hi Kasper/Matt,
I just downloaded the source jar from the staging repo and when I run the
below command on the same source then build is successful.
*mvn org.apache.rat:apache-rat-plugin:0.8:check *(Build successful)
BUT when I run the below
*mvn rat:check* (it fails with the below error for 2 licenses)
NOTE: The plugin used is not the apache rat plugin then but
rat-maven-plugin with version 1.0-alpha-3.
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal
org.codehaus.mojo:rat-maven-plugin:1.0-alpha-3:check (default-cli) on
project MetaModel: Too many unapproved licenses: 2 -> [Help 1]
I guess it might be that on your local machine it is picking the 2nd
rat-plugin. We use the apache-rat-plugin with artifact details as below.
<groupId>org.apache.rat</groupId>
<artifactId>apache-rat-plugin</artifactId>
Can you try with the first command specifying exactly the plugin group-id,
artifact name, version and goal.
Hope this help in getting more positive votes.
Regards
Ankit
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Matt Franklin <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Kasper Sørensen <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On the other hand - if I run "mvn test" (or mvn install), then the rat
> > plugin IS included in the build, and the configuration is picked up
> > correctly. On that basis I vote ...
> >
> > +1
> >
> > With a request to make sure "mvn rat:check" will work independently, or
> at
> > least set it up to run in the "validate" phase so it can be done without
> > compiling and running unittests.
> >
>
> The biggest issue that I see is that there are java test sources that do
> not have license headers. These are excluded in the rat config and should
> not be.
>
>
> >
> >
> > 2013/12/13 Kasper Sørensen <[email protected]>
> >
> > > I see the same thing ... If I download
> > >
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemetamodel-010/org/apache/metamodel/MetaModel/4.0.0-incubating/MetaModel-4.0.0-incubating-source-release.zipandrun"mvn
> rat:check" it fails.
> > >
> > > Looking at the report it seems that the configuration of the rat plugin
> > is
> > > not picked up correctly. In our configuration we have a bunch of
> > <exclude>
> > > elements but the rat plugin fails while processing those exact files
> that
> > > should have been excluded (for instance src/site/*, target/* files and
> > > more).
> > >
> > >
> > > 2013/12/12 Ankit Kumar <[email protected]>
> > >
> > >> Hi Matt,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for your quick feedback.
> > >>
> > >> I would like to share that the Rat check is done as part of the mvn
> > >> release process. It is automatically called because the Apache parent
> > pom
> > >> has the check applied under a release profile. No one can influence
> it.
> > >>
> > >> Attach I send you all the summarized rat report file for all modules
> as
> > >> was generated when I released the code on 2013-12-03.
> > >> NOTE: Since for each module it generates separate rat.txt files, so I
> > >> have copy pasted the output in one file.
> > >>
> > >> Also in the first release vote thread we got feedback from Arvind but
> it
> > >> was mainly for a DISCLAIMER file which we fixed.
> > >>
> > >> Are there different ways to trigger the same test as in the build it
> > does
> > >> not fail and on your end it fails.
> > >>
> > >> Please enlighten us.
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >> Ankit
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Matt Franklin <
> > [email protected]>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> -0
> > >>>
> > >>> The build failed a rat:check which means we probably didn't run it as
> > >>> part of the release process. I have attached the report. It looks
> > like
> > >>> mostly test and supplemental files, but we need to make sure all
> > released
> > >>> source has proper headers. The biggest issues are the test sources
> > that
> > >>> are missing headers. We need to not exclude tests in the rat check
> and
> > >>> make sure any files that represent more than trivial content have
> > headers.
> > >>> Otherwise, they should be ignored in the rat config.
> > >>>
> > >>> In the LICENSE file, licenses are included for transitive
> dependencies
> > >>> that are not part of the source package. These should not be there.
> > Only
> > >>> licenses for included source should be added. (I see in the rat
> report
> > >>> ahttp://css3pie.com).
> > >>>
> > >>> IMO, these are not critical blockers but please create issues in JIRA
> > >>> that MUST be resolved before next release and be prepared to defend
> the
> > >>> rat:check issue to the wider incubator and I will change my vote.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Ankit Kumar <
> [email protected]
> > >wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi All,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> After some discussions and agreements here I send again the VOTE
> > >>>> thread, additionally added the location of the sources as in the
> > >>>> staging repository.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
> > >>>> MetaModel(incubating) version 4.0.0.
> > >>>> This will be the first incubator release for Metamodel in Apache.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The tag to be voted on is
> > >>>> v4.0.0-incubating:
> > >>>>
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-metamodel.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/MetaModel-4.0.0-incubating
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Release artifacts are signed with the following
> > >>>> key:https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/ankitkumar2711.asc
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The staging repository for this release can be found
> > >>>> at:
> > >>>>
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemetamodel-010/
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Source jars can be found here:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> >
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemetamodel-010/org/apache/metamodel/MetaModel/4.0.0-incubating/
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache MetaModel
> > >>>> 4.0.0-incubating.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The vote is open until <17th December 2013 00:00 CET> and passes if
> a
> > >>>> majority of at least 3 IPMC votes are cast.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Regards
> > >>>> Ankit
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
