Hi,
Ok, then, you got me ;-)
I tried to setup what I had in mind:
* I patched the Felix parent pom (see FELIX-1747) attachement
* I created a modified Web Console project with adapted
license and notice files
* To ease creating the distros I created assembly descriptors
Sounds pretty good to me. So, should we move forward with it?
- richard
On 10/13/09 15:05, Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi,
Ok, then, you got me ;-)
I tried to setup what I had in mind:
* I patched the Felix parent pom (see FELIX-1747) attachement
* I created a modified Web Console
After reviewing the latest framework and HTTP Service releases, I
realize that pretty much all of our projects both include and use
Apache developed software (if nothing else, all projects depend on Maven
to build). It seems silly to list Apache under both include and use,
especially since the
Sounds good.
I'd like to have on point clarified though. What's the intent for use
/ include wrt to a binary jar, a source assembly (ready to build), a
binary assembly (composed of multiple bundles like the karaf one), a
source jar (only the source for the jar with no build system), and a
On 10/12/09 14:06, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Sounds good.
I'd like to have on point clarified though. What's the intent for use
/ include wrt to a binary jar, a source assembly (ready to build), a
binary assembly (composed of multiple bundles like the karaf one), a
source jar (only the source for
FYI, I created a wiki page for the NOTICE file template here:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FELIX/NOTICE+file+template+%28PROPOSED%29
Maybe there is a more appropriate place for it on the wiki, but for now
it is just under the developer documentation section.
Feel free to
Hi,
Thanks for bringing this up (again). The problem I have had for some
time now, is that our NOTICE files are not really consistent with the
legal intent of the NOTICE files.
Basically, the NOTICE files are part of the legal setup of Apache
products. As such they have have a fixed predefined
In general I'm +1, with one exception :)
This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
(http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
Apache software licensed under Apache License 2.0.
While the above sentence is true, I personally would read it that
One thing that might be worth considering if we go this way is to
leverage the maven plugin that has been written for the generation of
those legal files. The maven-remote-resources-plugin is used in most
Apache projects i've dealt with.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 14:46, Felix Meschberger
If we are not allowed to do it, then I'd rather have one file so we
don't have to determine whether we need to distinguish between the two
cases and have to maintain additional artifacts. For me, this has
nothing to do with courtesy, it has to do with easing the maintenance.
However, if we
On 10/12/09 14:51, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
In general I'm +1, with one exception :)
This software was developed at the Apache Software Foundation
(http://www.apache.org) and may have dependencies on other
Apache software licensed under Apache License 2.0.
While the
Oops, let me edit that:
If we ARE allowed to do it, then I'd rather have one file so we don't
have to determine whether we need to distinguish between the two cases
and have to maintain additional artifacts. For me, this has nothing to
do with courtesy, it has to do with easing the
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Felix Meschberger fmesc...@gmail.com wrote:
...Thanks for bringing this up (again). The problem I have had for some
time now, is that our NOTICE files are not really consistent with the
legal intent of the NOTICE files
FWIW, there's been some discussion
Hi,
Richard S. Hall schrieb:
Oops, let me edit that:
If we ARE allowed to do it, then I'd rather have one file so we don't
have to determine whether we need to distinguish between the two cases
and have to maintain additional artifacts. For me, this has nothing to
do with courtesy, it has
Seems fine to me
- R
Richard S. Hall wrote:
After reviewing the latest framework and HTTP Service releases, I
realize that pretty much all of our projects both include and use
Apache developed software (if nothing else, all projects depend on
Maven to build). It seems silly to list Apache
On 10/12/09 15:03, Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi,
Richard S. Hall schrieb:
Oops, let me edit that:
If we ARE allowed to do it, then I'd rather have one file so we don't
have to determine whether we need to distinguish between the two cases
and have to maintain additional artifacts. For me,
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Richard S. Hall he...@ungoverned.org wrote:
...reading the issue Bertrand references it is not clear. From my point
of view the overall issue to decide is:
1. Two-file approach, one for legal requirements and one for courtesy.
2. One-file approach for both.
On 10/12/09 15:17, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Richard S. Hallhe...@ungoverned.org wrote:
...reading the issue Bertrand references it is not clear. From my point
of view the overall issue to decide is:
1. Two-file approach, one for legal requirements and
Hi,
Richard S. Hall schrieb:
On 10/12/09 15:17, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Richard S.
Hallhe...@ungoverned.org wrote:
...reading the issue Bertrand references it is not clear. From my point
of view the overall issue to decide is:
1. Two-file
On 10/12/09 15:46, Felix Meschberger wrote:
Hi,
Richard S. Hall schrieb:
On 10/12/09 15:17, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Richard S.
Hallhe...@ungoverned.org wrote:
...reading the issue Bertrand references it is not clear. From my point
of
20 matches
Mail list logo
