yep -- it appears that https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/commit/ad28f33fea62cc5ce2c5a7a667b8cf9f06b7b7a2 removed the juju/persistentcookie dependency which is what used that library.
It appears to still be there in HEAD as well, so that would need to be fixed.. I'll file an issue on it.. On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Chris Lemmons <alfic...@gmail.com> wrote: > The script only checks what's present in the repo. It's possible that the > backport took the dependency out and we just missed deleting the vendored > files. > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:21 AM Dave Neuman <neu...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Thanks Chris, I thought the GPL license in the TS dir was taken care of, >> maybe we are missing a backport? >> I will have to take a look at that as time allows. >> >> Dan, if the postinstall changes are too much to backport, we should look at >> documenting what needs to be done to get the software installed, that might >> be sufficient. >> >> >> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Chris Lemmons <alfic...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Dave, I haven't run RAT, but I did just run the custom license tool for >> TC >> > and this is what it says: >> > >> > Error Unknown-Text! >> > traffic_monitor_golang/common/util/num.go >> > Error Unknown-Text! >> > traffic_monitor_golang/traffic_monitor/crconfig/data.go >> > Error Unknown-Bourne-Again! >> > traffic_ops/app/db/pg-migration/runwaiter.sh >> > Error GPL/LGPL! traffic_stats/vendor/ >> > gopkg.in/retry.v1/LICENSE >> > Error GPL/LGPL~! traffic_stats/vendor/ >> > gopkg.in/retry.v1/clock.go >> > Error GPL/LGPL~! traffic_stats/vendor/ >> > gopkg.in/retry.v1/exp.go >> > Error GPL/LGPL! traffic_stats/vendor/ >> > gopkg.in/retry.v1/regular.go >> > Error GPL/LGPL! traffic_stats/vendor/ >> > gopkg.in/retry.v1/retry.go >> > Error GPL/LGPL~! traffic_stats/vendor/ >> > gopkg.in/retry.v1/strategy.go >> > There are problematic licenses. >> > >> > Looks like two go files and one shell file missing it's apache header, >> plus >> > a problematic GPL component. >> > >> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:46 AM Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < >> > efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: >> > >> > > There is an issue that Jeff E will take care of later this week that >> is a >> > > showstopper. >> > > >> > > Also Dan was going to look into seeing if we needed more post >> > > install/postgres fixes back ported to 2.0.x so it could be useful. >> > > >> > > —Eric >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On May 17, 2017, at 11:02 AM, Dave Neuman <neu...@apache.org> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Hey All, >> > > > We had some great discussion about the 2.0 release at the summit, I >> was >> > > > wondering if anyone had a summary of that discussion and a list of >> > what's >> > > > left to do that could be added to this thread? I think we discussed >> > that >> > > > we were going to take another look at 2.0 and see if it is a viable >> > > release >> > > > that we should move forward with, is that everyone else's >> understanding >> > > as >> > > > well? >> > > > Does anyone know of any showstopper issues that still exist? >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > Dave >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < >> > > > efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> Update: >> > > >> - License issue has been fixed- Thanks Rob! >> > > >> - Postinstall script is broken, Jeff and Dan are looking at it. >> > > >> >> > > >> Once post install is fixed, I will cut an RC >> > > >> >> > > >> —Eric >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >>> On Apr 6, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Dewayne Richardson <dewr...@gmail.com> >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>> +1 >> > > >>> >> > > >>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Robert Butts < >> > robert.o.bu...@gmail.com >> > > > >> > > >>> wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>>> +1 >> > > >>>> I didn't realize it was new. >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Dan Kirkwood <dang...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>>> +1 >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 7:43 AM, David Neuman < >> > > david.neuma...@gmail.com >> > > >>> >> > > >>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>> Since the Cookie Jar functionality is new to 2.0 and 2.0 is not >> > yet >> > > >>>>>> released, why don't we just remove the `ResumeSession` method >> all >> > > >>>>> together >> > > >>>>>> and eliminate the dependency? Otherwise we are deprecating >> > > something >> > > >>>>> that >> > > >>>>>> we never formally released. >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Robert Butts < >> > > >> robert.o.bu...@gmail.com >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> Regarding `TC-119: traffic_ops/client dependency license >> issue`: >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> It looks like the persistent cookie jar is only needed by >> Traffic >> > > Ops >> > > >>>>>>> Client `ResumeSession(toURL string, insecure bool) (*Session, >> > > >> error)`. >> > > >>>>>>> Nothing in Traffic Control uses `ResumeSession`, and I doubt >> > anyone >> > > >>>>> else is >> > > >>>>>>> using it. Because it returns an error, and persisted cookies >> have >> > > >>>>>>> lifetimes, any current users already must handle errors from >> > > >> persisted >> > > >>>>>>> cookies being expired. Thus, we can change it to always return >> an >> > > >>>> error >> > > >>>>>>> with only degraded performance (and not much, login is cheap), >> > > >> without >> > > >>>>> loss >> > > >>>>>>> of functionality. >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> To fix TC-119, I propose we document `ResumeSession` as >> > deprecated, >> > > >>>> and >> > > >>>>>>> change it to always return an error, which lets us remove the >> > > >>>>> dependency, >> > > >>>>>>> without the development cost of writing our own persistent >> cookie >> > > >>>> store >> > > >>>>>>> that no one is using. >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> Any objections? >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jeremy Mitchell < >> > > >>>> mitchell...@gmail.com> >> > > >>>>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> These all got fixed and backported to 2.0: >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> TC-203: Mojo doesn’t set cachable headers on public files” >> > > >>>>>>>> TC-190: TTL type mismatch in CrConfig >> > > >>>>>>>> TC-189: ssl_multicert.config too slow >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> So Jan and Dave just need to close the issues. >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Jeffrey Martin < >> > > >>>>> martin.jef...@gmail.com >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Eric, >> > > >>>>>>>>> I was going to address the immediate Postinstall issues >> > TC-185. I >> > > >>>> am >> > > >>>>>>> way >> > > >>>>>>>>> late on this. I created a fork yesterday, need to run a >> couple >> > of >> > > >>>>> tests >> > > >>>>>>>> and >> > > >>>>>>>>> then I can push to this fork. >> > > >>>>>>>>> Jeff Martin >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < >> > > >>>>>>>>> efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> We have some release blockers for 2.0. Specifically: >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> TC-119: traffic_ops/client dependency license issue >> > > >>>>>>>>>> We cannot ship with Category-X LGPL software, so I’m >> waiting >> > > >>>>> for >> > > >>>>>>>> this >> > > >>>>>>>>>> to be resolved before cutting a release branch >> > > >>>>>>>>>> "TC-185 post install doesn’t run due to missing perl module” >> > > >>>>>>>>>> We shouldn’t ship a release in which the install process >> is >> > > >>>>>>> broken >> > > >>>>>>>> in >> > > >>>>>>>>>> this way. >> > > >>>>>>>>>> *There’s no assignee yet for this, any volunteers?* >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> I think if we can get those two taken care of we can cut an >> > RC0 >> > > >>>>> later >> > > >>>>>>>>> this >> > > >>>>>>>>>> week. >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> Major bugs we will ship with (unless someone objects): >> > > >>>>>>>>>> TC-203: Mojo doesn’t set cachable headers on public files” >> > > >>>>>>>>>> TC-190: TTL type mismatch in CrConfig >> > > >>>>>>>>>> TC-189: ssl_multicert.config too slow >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> —Eric >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Dave Neuman <neu...@apache.org >> > >> > > >>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Good question. I would also like to see us try to get some >> > > >>>>> release >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> candidates out for 2.0. I am pretty sure the actual >> install >> > > >>>> and >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> postinstall need work. There are also a couple of issue >> that >> > > >>>>> are >> > > >>>>>>>> still >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> assigned to 2.0 and unresolved: >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TC/fixforversion/ >> > > >>>>>>>>>> 12338562/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects- >> > > >>>>>>>>>> plugin:version-summary-panel >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> . >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Jan van Doorn < >> > > >>>> j...@knutsel.com >> > > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> When are we planning to release 2.0? We at Comcast are >> > > >>>> running >> > > >>>>>>> what >> > > >>>>>>>> we >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> call 2.0…. So we are +1, I am pretty sure. >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Eric: are you waiting for something? Which cats need >> > herding? >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rgds, >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> JvD >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>>> >> > > >>>>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
