Thanks for taking the time to review Justin, we appreciate it. On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry but it’s -1 (binding) until the MPL issue can be resolved / explained, > other issues can be fixed next release. For the MPL issue it may be that "For > small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at > runtime in source form” may apply. [2]
I think we just missed it, based on the example, I don't think we can use that escape-clause/rationale for its inclusion. We should take it back to the dev list at this point. > For the source release I checked: > - filename contains incubating > - signatures and hashes good > - DISCLAIMER exists > - LICENSE has minor issues + MPL issue [2] > - NOTICE good > - Some unexpected binaries in source (see below) > - All source file have headers > - Can compile form source? > > LiCENSE is missing: > - MIT licensed normalize.css (see > ./apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src/blur-console/src/main/webapp/public/css/blurconsole.css > + > ./apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src/blur-console/src/main/webapp/libs/bootstrap/less/normalize.less) > - MIT/BSD licensed polyfill (see ./docs/resources/js/respond.min.js) > > There is an issue with > ./blur-console/src/main/webapp/libs/tagmanager/tagmanager.js as this is MPL > licensed [2] which is weak copy left and considered a category B license. In > this case it looks like it isn’t been handled correctly as it being included > in source not binary form. I’m not sure how this should be handled given > there is no compiled JS form. > > > There are a couple of test files that contain compiled code, can this be > produced via the build process? > ./blur-core/src/test/resources/org/apache/blur/command/test1/test1.jar > ./blur-core/src/test/resources/org/apache/blur/command/test2/test2.jar Yeah, these were just to drive some tests but I reckon we should craft another way that ships in source form. > Something a little odd that caught my eye is all of the > ./distribution/src/main/resources-hadoop1/notices/*.jar.src files. Is there > any reason for these files to be in the source release? It look that they are > used to generate the binary NOTICE file? > They're sources needed to produce a [valid] binary package so it seemed reasonable to me include them. > For the binary release you may want to check the LICENSE as it is identical > to the source release [3]. For the binary NOTICE file a minor issue in that > there is no need to repeat "This product includes software developed by The > Apache Software Foundation “ [4]. > > Re compiling from source some instructions in the README would be helpful as > it seems a mvn install in the top directory may not do what is expected. (As > far as I can see it seems to be doing a rat check and nothing else?) Yeah, we should add something to the README that hints at the quickstart or profiles: mvn install -Dhadoop2 Thanks again for taking your time... Thanks, --tim --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
