Hi 2012/9/7 Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>: > [X] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released: > > Looks like we have 5 files missing licensing information. > > > > 7 Unknown Licenses > > ******************************* > > Unapproved licenses: > > The five files below appear to be missing any kind of licensing > information. The rest of the files in this directory have licensing > information. > > > myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/core/_EvalHandlers.js > myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/core/_RuntimeQuirks.js > myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/xhrCore/engine/BaseRequest.js > myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_DomExperimental.js > myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js > >
It seems to be related to some refactoring into our code base. > > myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/dojo-LICENSE.TXT > > "New" BSD or AFL 2.1. Bsd is approved, so maybe just add to exclude list. > Yes > > myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/facelets-LICENSE.txt > > APL 2, but unusual format? -- add to exclude list? > Yes. regards, Leonardo Uribe > > Below is the link describing what we need to do to add files to an exclude > list. > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jackrabbit-dev/200907.mbox/%3c510143ac0907010606j73c9d973yf40d8c2b03896...@mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks! Not sure how I missed that one. Withdrawing my vote. I'll >> let you know how it turns out. >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> This artifact: >>> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemyfaces-034/org/apache/myfaces/core/myfaces-core-module/2.1.9/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9-source-release.zip >>> >>> is the one that allows to build it using maven. In practice, it is a >>> copy of the sources from the svn. This artifact is included also in: >>> >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemyfaces-034/org/apache/myfaces/core/myfaces-core-assembly/2.1.9/myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.zip >>> >>> Build it is quite simple: unpack and mvn install. >>> >>> regards, >>> >>> Leonardo Uribe >>> >>> 2012/9/6 Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>: >>>> So I'm doing the work to vote for a release -- something I haven't >>>> participated in in a very long time. >>>> >>>> Leonardo's key in KEYS - check >>>> .jar.md5 matches - check >>>> .jar.asc.md5 matches - check >>>> .jar.sha1 matches -check >>>> .jar.asc.sha1 matches -check >>>> .asc files mat >>>> >>>> Includes source - check >>>> Source builds -- Not seeing any kind of build system or build >>>> instructions. >>>> >>>> Checking our web site only shows how to build from an svn checkout. >>>> >>>> Did we somehow lose the ability to build from our released source when >>>> we switched to maven? >>>> Because unless something has changed this is a big deal. >>>> >>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what >>>> ==================== >>>> What Must Every ASF Release Contain? >>>> >>>> Every ASF release *must* contain a source package, which must be >>>> sufficient for a user to build and test the release provided they have >>>> access to the appropriate platform and tools. >>>> [...] >>>> What are the ASF requirements on approving a release? >>>> >>>> [...] Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed >>>> source code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting >>>> executable on their own platform, along with also verifying that the >>>> package contains the required contents. >>>> ==================== >>>> >>>> We hit this issue in Cayenne a couple years back and had to do some >>>> work to fix it. >>>> >>>> http://markmail.org/thread/njray5dbazwcdcts >>>> >>>> The natural inclination is to argue about it and try to say it's not >>>> required. One can read through lots of threads on that if you really >>>> want to satisfy that need. >>>> >>>> But it all comes down to the fact that our "open source" releases need >>>> to be something that someone can modify and build. And right now, >>>> that isn't doable. Source control systems come and go. The ASF >>>> might disappear next year. Or you might just be some poor guy who, >>>> five years from now, has to work on a project I wrote to fix some >>>> minor bug and find that the particular branch for Myfaces 2.1.9 >>>> accidentally got corrupted. The reasons for why it is done this way >>>> are numerous and worthwhile. But even if that doesn't sell you on >>>> it, in the end it comes down to being a requirement of a release, >>>> whether or not you agree with it. >>>> >>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cayenne-dev/201008.mbox/%3CAANLkTi=ykjoaw6sukpti_wfhcolkly4xcwo_cpfjx...@mail.gmail.com%3E >>>> >>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cayenne-dev/201008.mbox/%3CAANLkTi=ut4he_ntjqmaqn4tj2jxgbeakbsrcdo9zh...@mail.gmail.com%3E >>>> >>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cayenne-dev/201008.mbox/%3caanlktikogyvs+l8syj0bovcub1780xytfca9bvmve...@mail.gmail.com%3E >>>> >>>> But don't just take my word on it, read through the 123 messages on >>>> the legal discuss thread :) >>>> >>>> http://markmail.org/thread/njray5dbazwcdcts >>>> >>>> >>>> So at least for now, >>>> >>>> [X] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released: >>>> >>>> - Release cannot be built and tested from source.
