Good point,
(
wierd, mvn -Passembly clean install fails in the root folder OSX, ok
in the assembly folder, but hudson is Ok
error is
Failed to create assembly: File to filter not found: /Users/ieb/Apache/
shindig/trunk/assembly/../1.0.x-incubating/assembly/pom.xml (No such
file or directory)
I have no idea where the ../1.0.x-incubating is coming from.
).
Anyway, looking at the hudson artifacts.
some comments.
Looking at the source assembly.
There is no LICENSE or NOTICE in the top level directory, consequently
there are some subfolders that don't appear to be covered by a license.
eg
javascript
assembly
etc
features
site
config
java and php are covered.
Looking at the Java assembly.
====================
In the README,
"
Memory:
No minimum requirement.
Disk:
No minimum requirement.
"
Not exactly true, someone might think they could run this on a
phone... (they probably could, who know why they would want to :))
Memory:
128MB Minimum
Disk
128MB Minimum
=====================
In the war file:
Is it worth adding a line to the NOTICE file so that those
expecting to see 3rd party libs listed there will go to the right place.
"This package includes bundled 3rd party dependencies which are
listed in the DEPENDENCIES file."
=====================
In features-jar
The NOTICE and dependencies contain no mention of the OpenSocial
spec, I think there may be some javascript from there and certainly we
should reference
http://code.google.com/apis/opensocial/terms.html
=====================
In gadgets-jar
Similarly we should probably reference
http://code.google.com/apis/gadgets/docs/terms.html
=====================
Other than that IMHO it looks Ok.
The changes to the NOTICE files are only a suggestion since I noticed
that on the last release there were those that thought only NOTICE and
LICENSE were valid locations. Just as LICENSE references NOTICE, if
NOTICE referenced DEPENDENCIES they might be more willing to accept.
I hope I haven't opened a can of worms on the references to the Gadget
and OpenSocial spec's.
Ian
On 4 May 2009, at 23:25, Vincent Siveton wrote:
Hi Ian,
2009/5/4 Ian Boston <[email protected]>:
I am getting a build failure on the source assembly.
Not certain why yet.
Thanks for your response :)
You could always have a look to Hudson for the assemblies.
The main point is to see if legal sources are conform or not.
Cheers,
Vincent
