Due to my lack of maven experience, it's taken me awhile to figure out
how to configure apache rat so that I could get past the two license
exceptions in the api project.
Here's the full list of unapproved files in the rest of the project:
implee6/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/javax.servlet.ServletContainerInitializer
impl/src/test/java/org/apache/myfaces/config/annotation/ClassByteCodeAnnotationFilterTest.java
impl/src/test/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.myfaces.config.annotation.LifecycleProvider
impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/composite/testSimpleThisResourceReference.xhtml
impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/composite/javax.faces/jsf.js
impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/jsf/html/javax.faces/jsf.js
impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/updateheadres/resources/javax.faces/jsf.js
impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/lifecycle/view2.xhtml
impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/lifecycle/view1.jsp
impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/context/nestedScriptCDATA.xml
impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/xdoc-component.vmimpl/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/glassfish-LICENSE.txt
impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/facelets-LICENSE.txt
impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.myfaces.config.annotation.LifecycleProvider
impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/xdoc-tag.vm
impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/xdoc-web-config.vm
impl/src/main/resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/javaee_5.xsd
impl/src/main/resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/javaee_web_services_client_1_2.xsd
impl/src/main/conf/META-INF/.standard-faces-config-base.xml.jsfdia
shared-public/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view2.xhtml
shared-public/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view1.jsp
shared/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view2.xhtml
shared/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view1.jsp
Here is what needed to be added to the api/om.xml file in order to
skip the two files. From what I can tell, we probably should write
license rules for these files rather than exclude them, but that's not
a show-stopper.
<plugin>
<groupId>org.apache.rat</groupId>
<artifactId>apache-rat-plugin</artifactId>
<configuration>
<excludes>
<exclude>src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/dojo-LICENSE.TXT</exclude>
<exclude>src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/facelets-LICENSE.txt</exclude>
</excludes>
</configuration>
</plugin>
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have updated the artifacts, so we can continue the vote. Please put
> the vote on the mail with subject:
>
> [VOTE] release of Apache MyFaces 2.1.9
> [VOTE] release of Apache MyFaces 2.0.15
>
> regards,
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>
> 2012/9/11 Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com>:
>> 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.
