activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 (RC2)
Date Fri, 13 Mar 2015 17:42:37 GMT
The source archive and/or tag (depending on who you ask) is the
ultimate release at the end of the day. The binaries are only
conveniences, but as we do ship them are expected to be treated
similaly in terms of license/notice handling, and they often tend to
be treated as component parts of the release process as a result.
Certainly I would be surprisd to find anything in the releases area of
repository.apache.org that hadnt been voted on in some way, even
though only by proxy of the matching source artifact release.

The apache parent pom adds the tooling leading to creation of the
LICENCE and NOTICE files in the jar files. It has always been my
understanding they do need to be there, mainly a result of seeing
other projects pulled up on not having them.
http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq mentions:

Does the policy apply to binary/object files, such as executables or JAR files?

Yes. Even if there are no source files within the release, the LICENSE
file and NOTICE file are still both required within every ASF
distribution -- whether the unit of distribution is a .jar, .msi,
.tar/.?gz, .zip, .exe installer, or any other file format used for
distributions. For example, Windows .exe files must not be used as a
unit of distribution unless they are installers and include the
LICENSE and NOTICE files in their installation.

The interesting bit there would be deciding whether something (a .jar)
was not 'a unit of distribution' because it was included inside
something else that was (a tar.gz). Including the files seems
easier/safer :-)

Robbie

On 13 March 2015 at 17:09, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com> wrote:
> The apache release process covers the artifacts in apache/dist[1]
> The jars in maven are outside the process from what I understand and
> as such they do not need a LICENSE or NOTICE file.
>
> However, I see some value in putting them in there, but I also see a
> potential downside, because it may suggest that they are 'released'
> artifacts that have been voted on by a PMC, which will not be the
> case. It may be a case of maven tech adoption going ahead of explicit
> policy.
> What is an apache release may indeed, in the future, extend to what is
> in maven, and we will be ahead of the curve with the inclusion of
> these two files :-)
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#where-do-releases-go
>
> On 13 March 2015 at 16:15, Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemmell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 13 March 2015 at 15:59, Martyn Taylor <mtaylor@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13/03/15 15:16, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I downloaded the src+bin tar.gz files, and gave the src build a run
>>>> through and kicked the tyres on the binary. The NPE from RC1 when
>>>> using an AMQP client is now fixed. In the docs the links to the
>>>> configuration index now work, and the table there now links to the
>>>> .html files rather than the .md files.
>>>>
>>>> For the docs, the project-info page near the start is still 404's.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looking at some of the diff since RC1, I noticed that some JSON
>>>> related source files had their 'JSON licence' restored to them. They
>>>> should be mentioned in the distro LICENCE files as a result, either
>>>> including the license or pointing to it in the tree.
>>>
>>> Given that the activemq-core-client jar covers these source files it it's
>>> LICENSE, am I correct in assuming there is no need to add this again in the
>>> binary distribution? i.e. apache-activemq-6.0.0-bin i.e. we should only
>>> need to add this to the LICENSE file in the source distribution?
>>>>
>>
>> I think it needs to be there (anyone else know otherwise?), and I
>> would personally add it since the LICENSE file in the distribution
>> root ultimately lets people know what terms the various included bits
>> are under. The ones in the jars also need to be there because jars are
>> also distributions themselves and people can/do use them in isolation
>> (e.g from a maven repo).
>>
>>>> The
>>>> activemq-core-client jar has the ASLv2 included twice in its
>>>> META-INF/LICENCE file, likely due to the appended-resources file for
>>>> adding the licence for the JSON bits.
>>>
>>> Yes.  The build appears to append the license rather than overwrite as we
>>> had thought.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was a base64.txt licence file previously that went away; is that
>>>> code no longer included?
>>>
>>> Clebert already replied to this.  But yes this is no longer included.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Robbie
>>>>
>>>> On 13 March 2015 at 14:05, Gary Tully <gary.tully@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the fast turnaround.
>>>>>
>>>>> NOTICE and LICENCE files look correct in both source and binary distros.
>>>>>
>>>>> source builds, tests run, resulting binary looks great.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I found one Cat-x transitive dep that breaks the build.
>>>>> I added an exclusion and the source builds find, so the dependency is
>>>>> not required but it needs to be removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Detail:
>>>>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project activemq-rest: Could not
>>>>> resolve dependencies for project
>>>>> org.apache.activemq.rest:activemq-rest:jar:6.0.0: The repository
>>>>> system is offline but the artifact
>>>>>
>>>>> org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation:jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec:jar:1.0.1.Final
>>>>> ..
>>>>>
>>>>> Resolution:
>>>>> <dependency>
>>>>>    <groupId>org.jboss.resteasy</groupId>
>>>>>    <artifactId>resteasy-jaxrs</artifactId>
>>>>>    <exclusions>
>>>>>
>>>>> <exclusion><groupId>org.jboss.spec.javax.annotation</groupId><artifactId>jboss-annotations-api_1.1_spec</artifactId>
>>>>>    </exclusion>
>>>>>   </exclusions>
>>>>> </dependency>
>>>>>
>>>>> So this is another -1.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, with this issue fixed and no regressions - I am ready to +1
>>>>> this release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shout out to other pmc members - even if you don't intend to vote, can
>>>>> you take a few moments to cast your eyes over the artifacts.
>>>>> As this is a first release, we need many eyes to validate there are no
>>>>> glaring omissions.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12 March 2015 at 21:30, Martyn Taylor <mtaylor@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've cut a second release candidate of Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0 addressing
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> initial RC feedback from community members.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a first release of the HornetQ code donation with support
for
>>>>>> AMQP,
>>>>>> STOMP, CORE and OPENWIRE
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The release notes can be found here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12315920&version=12328953
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The binary distributions can be found here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The source archives can be found here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/6.0.0/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Maven repository is here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheactivemq-1037/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The source tag:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq-6.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/6.0.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The project website for that version has been staged to:
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~martyntaylor/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The vote will remain open for 72 hours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +1 approve the release as Apache ActiveMQ 6.0.0
>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's my (non-binding) +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martyn
>>>
>>>

Mime
View raw message