Hi
Do we require all licenses in place even for test files? I think the
related files does not require the license, because they are not code
at all. For example, the intention
META-INF/services/org.apache.myfaces.config.annotation.LifecycleProvider
is set the default lifecycle provider, so it only contains a
reference.
Anyway, I'll do another try next week.
regards,
Leonardo Uribe
2012/9/13 Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>:
> I still have to vote -1 until we have fixed the licenses for all files
> that need licenses. Licensing is one of the few absolute requirements
> for an approved release.
>
> I know that this vote is dying the death of a thousand cuts, but I am
> doing the best I can to identify as many problems at once. What has
> taken me several hours to identify this morning could have been done
> by someone knowledgeable with maven in a few minutes.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Ok, good to know that. Maybe we can enable rat on the next release. I
>> think we can continue with the release vote too.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Leonardo
>>
>> 2012/9/13 Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>:
>>> And here's what I did to come up with this list:
>>>
>>> mvn apache-rat:check -Drat.numUnapprovedLicenses=9999
>>>
>>> ls -1 */target/rat.txt
>>>
>>> api/target/rat.txt
>>> bundle/target/rat.txt
>>> implee6/target/rat.txt
>>> impl/target/rat.txt
>>> parent/target/rat.txt
>>> shaded-impl/target/rat.txt
>>> shared-public/target/rat.txt
>>> shared/target/rat.txt
>>>
>>> and then went through that list of files by hand.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 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.
