Hi I have fixed the files with missing licenses, included a fix for MYFACES-3605, so I'll send another vote over the new artifacts soon.
regards, Leonardo Uribe 2012/9/7 Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com>: > 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.
