Le 4/24/12 12:20 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò a écrit :
On 24/04/2012 12:04, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
Sorry guys, but atm, I will -1 this release. (keep in mind that a -1
is *not* a veto when it comes to releases)
I'd like to have a way to download a package containing all tghe
sources, being able to tar xzpf it, and build it to obtain the bin.
So far, either I svn co the sourcs fro SVN, or I have to grab the
signed jars in
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachesyncope-083/,
but then I'm facing many sub directories with signed source jars
which don't allow me to build the project.
Hi Emmanuel,
would it be enough to:
1. svn export of the release tag
2. tar zcvf
3. generate needed signatures (asc, md5, sha1, ...)
4. put these files somewhere (where?)
What we usually do is that we have a distribution sub-module that gather
everything (sources, etc), and this is what we distribute on the web
site (see http://directory.apache.org/apacheds/2.0/downloads.html for
instance, the binaries are provided for convenience, what is important
is the last package,
http://directory.apache.org/apacheds/2.0/download/download-sources.html)
In the long run, that would help you by avoiding those manual steps.
In any case, the packages have to be stored in
/www/www.apache.org/dist/incubator/syncope (see other incubator
projects). You will have to copy them by hand (atm).
You can copy the sources tarballs on your public apache directory
(people.apache.org, public.html directory), and provide the link for the
vote.
"Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed
source code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting
executable on their own platform, along with also verifying that the
package contains the required contents
<http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what-must-every-release-contain>."
From
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what-must-every-release-contain :
"Every ASF release *must* contain a source package, which must be
sufficient for a user to build and test the release provided they
have access to the appropriate platform and tools."
Also the NOTICE file (which IMO should be found in the root of every
package, but maybe having it in META-INF is enough) should contain
references to third party components, such as activiti.org,
SpringFramework, AspectJ (with the associated license, as it has 3
diffrerent licenses for this project, depending on the version -
MPL1.1 for 1.0, CPL1.0 for 1.1 to 1.5.1, EPL1.0 for 1.5.22), XStream
(as requested by their license, you must include it), Quartz, Groovy,
SLF4J, LogBack, connid (even if it's a Tirasa product, unless you
find out a way to make it ASL 2.0 instead of CDDL...), junit, h2
(which requires a few files to be added), Javassist with the selected
license, as it's available under MPL, LGPL or ASL (wtf javassist
guys? Can't you pick ASL2.0 and get rid of the others ? ;), plus a
mention of the other ASF project you are using, but this is not
required.
NOTICE file is included, alongside with LICENSE, in all artifacts (see
SYNCOPE-3).
Yes, I saw. I was wondering if we should not provide them at the top
level, instead of having them in META_INF
About non ASL-2.0 dependencies, we already went through the process of
"reducing to ASL 2.0" as much as possible (the biggest move was from
Hibernate to OpenJPA), so I don't think there is room for more
replacement.
This is not an issue. Every ASL 2.0 compatible licenses are fine (ie,
MPL, CDDL, BSD, EPL,...) as soon as you mention their origin. If you use
a third party software which is released under a ASL 2.0 license, then
adding a mention in the NOTICE that you are using "Blah Software,
released under an ASL 2.0 License" just helps the potential users, who
won't have to dig the web for the third part license.
Anyway, it seems that SYNCOPE-2 should be re-opened, since NOTICE file
was not filled - as you report above: I'll do this right away.
Sorry that I waited for the release to be done to check the result. As I
said, I was off for the week-end, otherwise I would have gave a hand...
Yes, yes, I know, I'm a PITA...
Eh eh eh, I felt like it was too much easy to jump to the first
incubating release... ;-)
Actually, you did a good job. I'm pretty sure that beside the few
remaining points, the release is correct.
In any case, be sure to read carefully
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html. If you have any question, feel
free to ask.
Hope it helps !
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
