Ate Douma schrieb:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>> With the great help from Ate, I think we're really ready for a release
>> now. It would be great if someone could also have a look at the current
>> trunk and check if we might have forgotten/overseen something,
>> especially the license stuff for the war file and the tomcat
>> distribution.
>>
>> You can build the distribution with "ant -f dist-build.xml".
> Hi Carsten,
> 
> I've took a brief look at both the license and legal files and the
> resulting distribution and have a few comments.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the NOTICE file(s) for particulary the wars
> and the binary distribution are supposed to "notice" all third party
> usages which require a license/copyright notice in the corresponding
> NOTICE file.
> I see you added the redistribution license files for JAXB and SLF4J, but
> see no notice remark fore these, nor for some other (even while being
> ASL 2.0 licensed) third party redistributed products (jars) like
> Springframework etc.
> See for instance the NOTICE file "embedded" within the Tomcat based
> distribution which provides some notices, but those only cover the
> Tomcat provided redistribution of third party products, none of the
> Pluto added ones.
> I don't want to be nitpicking here and definitely am not an expert on
> these ASF legal requirements, so if you think the current configuration
> is/should be good enough, lets not make it more complicated then it
> already is :)
> 
> It is unclear to me how you plan to provide the required formal ASF
> source distribution: manually (e.g. by simply archiving the full source
> tree), or plan to use the "maven" way, using the portals-pom configured
> maven-assembly-plugin with the "project" descriptor like what we did for
> the portlet-spec and APA releases?
> In the latter case, you will still need to add a "apache-release"
> profile to the root pom like the following:
> 
>     <profiles>
>     <profile>
>       <id>apache-release</id>
>       <build>
>         <plugins>
>           <plugin>
>             <!-- only include this in top level project poms -->
>             <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
>             <artifactId>maven-assembly-plugin</artifactId>
>           </plugin>
>         </plugins>
>       </build>
>     </profile>
>     </profiles>
> 
> and commit that first before you can run the maven release:prepare.
> 
> Additionally, if you want to (try) the above, be aware of some current
> "caveats" of this procedure and the current maven-assembly-plugin for
> which I already created issue http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-409
> Those "caveats" are not all that critical really (and we've decided to
> accept them while doing the the portlet-spec and APA releases).
> But take note specifically of the fact that the resulting assembled
> source distro(s) will have a "-project" postfix (classifier), e.g. end
> up to be like pluto-2.0.0-project.zip, not what you might expect (or
> want) pluto-2.0.0-src.zip
> This is also under discussion on the Maven dev list for the next
> revision of the assembly-plugin, see:
>   http://www.nabble.com/Update-on-ASF-Release-requirements-td23379350.html
> 
> Personally, I don't very much like the -project postfix as end users
> might be looking for the typical -src postfix instead.
> 
> For that reason, and because a new version of the maven-assembly-plugin
> won't be available in time for us, I'm considering if we should use our
> own custom "project" assembly configuration in Jetspeed (and can also be
> done for Pluto) to work around the MASSEMBLY-409 issues for our upcoming
> release (only).
> Such a custom assembly configuration would be pretty easy and quick to
> setup and I can provide that for Pluto if you want on short notice.
> With hindsight, I think we might better have done that too for the
> portlet-spec and APA releases, but well, we needed those releases be
> done  then.
I can't get the custom assembly to work. It seems that it's still trying to
build the -project (inherited from the parent pom?) in addition to the
custom.

If you know how do it we can use our custom one, if not, I think we
should just go with the "-project".

Regards
Carsten
-- 
Carsten Ziegeler
[email protected]

Reply via email to