Leonardo, Rat is still complaining about the same 7 licensing issues.
However, only certain instances of these files appear to be missing licenses. myfaces-core-2.1.9-src> find . -name _ExtLang.js -exec ls -1 {} \; .This one has the license header. It comes from myfaces-api-2.1.9-sources.jar inside of myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.tar.gz exists -- ./src/META-INF/internal-resources/org.apache.myfaces.core.impl.util/_ExtLang.js The following two are identical. The first one is the one rat flags as needing a header. I guess that's because it's the "source" version of all the rest of them. It comes from myfaces-core-module-2.1.9-source-release.zip inside of myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.tar.gz. Maybe this file also needs to be fixed in svn? I was not able to determine where this file comes from in SVN. You had said that module was essentially a snapshot of SVN. Maybe this snapshot did not get updated because we reused the version number? missing -- ./src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js missing -- ./src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/target/classes/META-INF/internal-resources/org.apache.myfaces.core.impl.util/_ExtLang.js [........ The rest of this email can likely be ignored....] The following two are the compressed-down versions with no extra whitespace or comments, which is what you would expect: missing -- ./src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/target/classes/META-INF/internal-resources/javax.faces/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js missing -- ./src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/target/classes/META-INF/resources/myfaces/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js I have double and triple-checked to insure that I have a new myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.tar.gz download, and all of the files inside it were built on Sep 10, 8-to-10pm EST, which is right before the email you sent out. -rw-r--r-- 1 mkienenb users 8119569 Sep 10 21:31 myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 mkienenb users 8119322 Sep 10 21:30 myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.zip -rw-rw-r-- 1 mkienenb users 900906 Sep 10 20:24 myfaces-api-2.1.9-sources.jar drwxrwxr-x 12 mkienenb users 4096 Sep 11 21:50 myfaces-core-module-2.1.9 -rw-rw-r-- 1 mkienenb users 5863230 Sep 10 20:24 myfaces-core-module-2.1.9-source-release.zip -rw-rw-r-- 1 mkienenb users 1809659 Sep 10 20:24 myfaces-impl-2.1.9-sources.jar -rw-rw-r-- 1 mkienenb users 423440 Sep 10 20:24 myfaces-impl-shared-2.1.9-sources.jar \ Unapproved licenses: /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/core/_EvalHandlers.js /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/core/_RuntimeQuirks.js /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/xhrCore/engine/BaseRequest.js /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_DomExperimental.js /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/dojo-LICENSE.TXT /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/facelets-LICENSE.txt On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.