thanks martijn.
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
I checked the RAT report:
Mostly looking ok, but a couple of notes:
- .classpath files from Eclipse are usually picked upon when trying
to get the release
vetted, you might want to formulate an answer as to why they are
necessary or get
rid of them
they are necessary for eclipse development. why would they be picked on?
- several notes.txt files don't have a license header. Since they are
distributed, and
copyrighted, they should have a license header. I know it makes
them less readable.
If you don't want to put a license header in, then have an answer
prepared when/if
the question comes up.
i don't see the notes files as intellectual property in need of
protection. the README.txt doesn't
have such protection. is there a short version of a header that we could
put in? one line? what
might be good would be positive confirmation in the file itself that no
protection was needed, and
have rat honor that.
I've checked a checkout of the tag and compared it to the src release,
and couldn't find differences. Though the extra subdirectory in the
src-zip file could be removed.
nod.
Maven stuff: groupid should be org.apache.etch (in the README.txt it
is referenced as etch.etch)
eek. i thought that was stamped out.
If you solve the issues noted by Niclas, I don't see anything blocking
the release.
Martijn
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Niclas Hedhman<[email protected]> wrote:
1. Verified all .MD5 and .SHA1 checksums.
2. Verified that the .ASC is signed by a key from the KEYS file in the
SVN directory.
3. Content in -src.tar.gz has an extra level of 'etch' that we
normally don't promote. Not a stopper.
4. Verified that all artifacts in SRC release exist in the SVN tag.
5. Verified that the content in the SRC zip and tar.gz archives are
equivalent. Whitespace differs though, not a stopper.
6. There is two files present in the BIN.zip distro that is not
present in the BIN.tar.gz distro;
ApacheEtchCsharpIncubating.dll
ApacheEtchCsharpIncubating.pdb
Any reason for that?? Stopper depending on answer.
7. I didn't get "ant-dotnet" working.
[taskdef] Could not load definitions from resource
org/apache/ant/dotnet/antlib.xml. It could not be found.
I think it is because the following property
Etch.dependency.ant-dotnet-1.0.jar, see;
-bash-3.2$ grep -r build.ant-dotnet.lib * | grep -v target
build-support/etch.common.xml: <property
name="Etch.dependency.ant-dotnet-1.0.jar"
value="${build.ant-dotnet.lib}/ant-dotnet-1.0.jar" />
refers to "build.ant-dotnet.lib" which is not set anywhere... but then
again, changing it to use ant-dotnet.lib (defined in
build.dependencies) didn't work, so it could be a matter of ordering
and/or classpath setups... and I don't have more time to investigate
this. I recommend an amendment in the BUILD.txt saying how to make the
Taskdef available in Ant by copying something, or setting an
additional env variable. I want to see an amendment in the BUILD.txt
OR a fix to the build so that the BUILD.txt tells the correct story.
8. I have not tested the Eclipse build, as I see that as a pure
optional setup...
9. Licensing-wise;
a. You depend on JavaCC which is licensed under BSD, which is fully
Ok, but the BSD license requires that the downstream users are
notified of this and that attribution is paid to the project. Please
add an entry for that in NOTICE, and the actual BSD License text at
the end of LICENSE file. This is a show stopper.
b. You depend on JUnit which is licensed under Common Public License
(CPL), which we have defined as a Category B license for inclusion in
Apache projects, i.e. only Binary dependencies. You fulfill this
requirement, but again CPL requires attribution, so please add in
NOTICE and the full license text at the end of the LICENSE file.
Alternatively, specify JUnit installed to operate with Ant as a
"System Requirement" for building from sources.
c. You have an optional/alternate dependency on Mono. Considering
the licensing statement from Novell, I think this should also be
brought up on legal-discuss@ mailing list. I don't think it has been
covered in the past. Personally I think you are in the clear, (same
goes for NUnit) if you change the wording to be that Mono or DotNet
(and NUnit) are "System Requirements" and not "Dependencies" as they
are now listed. After all, you are not redistributing in any way.
d. I think you should gracefully list Apache Velocity in the NOTICE file.
10. I have not verified that the build output from sources correspond
with the binary distro.
Cheers
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:50 AM, scott comer<[email protected]> wrote:
artifacts are here:
http://people.apache.org/~sccomer/apache-etch-1.1.0-incubating/
source is tagged here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/etch/releases/release-1.1.0-incubating/
notes about testing here:
http://cwiki.apache.org/ETCH/checking-a-release.html
i've downloaded and tested:
apache-etch-1.1.0-incubating-setup.exe
i checked sig, md5, sha, installed and built examples and README.txt of
examples.
i checked operation of eclipse scripts in a normal (no space in path)
environment.
+1
someone else please test:
(extract and build on linux)
apache-etch-1.1.0-incubating-src.tar.gz
(extract and build on windows)
apache-etch-1.1.0-incubating-src.zip
(extract and build examples on linux)
apache-etch-1.1.0-incubating.tar.gz
(extract and build examples on windows)
apache-etch-1.1.0-incubating.zip
scott out
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
