On 31/03/2008, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sebb wrote: > > On 31/03/2008, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > -1: There are MD5 and SHA1 digests in the directory, but the archives > > have no signatures. > > > > > > OK, I will fix this. > > >> Maven Repository: http://people.apache.org/~dandiep/abdera-take6/ > >> > >> > > > > -0: The abdera-bundle-0.4.0-incubating-sources.jar does not appear to > > have any content - only the META-INF directory is present. Is that > > correct? > > > > This is just a by-product of Maven. We can delete it. > > > -1: The NOTICE files in that jar (and others) contains far too much. > > The NOTICE file is for required attribtions ONLY (e.g. as per an About box) > > There's really no need to repeat ASF for each project used by Abdera. > > > > Having too much information in the NOTICE files is not a crime. The > Maven remote-resources plugin aggregates all this stuff for us so we > never miss any notice that we need to put in.
Unfortunately the plugin generates incorrect information. It *is* a problem having all the redundant information. See for example: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html also http://wiki.apache.org/legal/3party/notice http://wiki.apache.org/legal/3party/notice/discuss > > -1: The LICENSE files need to either contain copies of the 3rd party > > licenses, or they need to have a reference to the 3rd party licences. > > Equally, there is no need for the lib directory to contain copies of > > the AL for every ASF product. > > > > Why does the LICENSE file need to have a copy of all the other licenses? > These are contained in the lib/ directory like many other ASF projects. > See the last paragraph of: http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new > Re: the ASL license in lib/ - once again having too much information is > not a crime. This is a service to uesrs so they know where the libraries > came from. I agree the source is useful, but the place for this is the LICENSE file. > > -1: RAT report says: > > > > 99 Unknown Licenses > > > > Some of these are trivial, but most require an AL header. > > > > Not true - there is not consensus that properties/xml files need to have > headers. All the Java source code files have headers. If there are > specific files that you feel should have a license that don't please > list them and explain why. I'm not saying that we didn't miss something, > but I am saying that the ones that I know about don't necessarily > require a header. Yes, they do, see: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions > > What is the SVN tag that corresponds with the archives? > > > > > > the branch will be tagged once its released. > > Dan > > > -- > Dan Diephouse > MuleSource > http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
