Hi
It seems that one is the only artifact that does not have the update.
All other source files installed in nexus repository are ok. Maybe it
was because the assembly files were compiled before the final
sources-release.zip file, so the old one was used.
I'll rebuild everything everything again and send another vote mail.
Thanks for notice it.
regards,
Leonardo
2012/9/11 Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>:
> So I finally thought to look at the dates of the files inside of the
> the Sep 10th myfaces-core-module-2.1.9-source-release.zip file.
> They are all from
> Sep 4th, so the problem does appear to be that this piece wasn't
> rebuilt in your last release. This is probably why the license files
> are still missing.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 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.
