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.
