cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joerg Heinicke <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1/legal LICENSE.ant
Date Tue, 17 Feb 2004 01:04:08 GMT
On 15.02.2004 13:30, Antonio Gallardo wrote:

>>>               src/blocks/ojb/lib db-ojb-1.0.rc5-20040203.jar
>>What happened here?
> Locally I mantain a builded copy of ojb with the lastest changes. To avoid
> every day changing the name in libs.xml I rename it to the lastest updated
> version in Cocoon. Evidently it was my fault to send them. Anyway it is a
> working copy already tested of the jar.

Oh, that's an important issue! We will never get the correct source from 
CVS if you switch the binary, but not the date! Please don't start with 
such a Bad Thing (TM).

File endings, local.*.properties1, deleted shell script - FIXED, thanks, ok.

>>>               legal    LICENSE.ant
>>This file does not reference Ant in any way, it's just the common Apache
>>license. Should this be correct?
> I got this file from the root of the new Ant distribution. Seems like they
> did an error while updting the License.

> Is OK if I fill the file instead of ant people? Is here somebody that can
> alert ant people about this issue?

I don't know how to go on. I guess they should know it to have it fixed 
in their CVS also.

>>>               tools/lib ant.jar
> Last time I updated Ant. I noted some troubles in the scripts (.sh .bat)
> used to run Ant. This time I tried to avoid this problem by simply coping
> the files without any internal change. Also the ant version is presented
> as usual when we run the command. Knowing this I decided to not
> rename the ant.jar. Note that this file is not copied in the Cocoon
> distribution so the jar name validator does not check it.

Ok, I can live with it. What do others think?

>>>               tools/bin antenv.cmd runrc.cmd ant.cmd envset.cmd
>>Do we need them now? Furthermore they seem to have the wrong
>>license/copyright hint now.
> I decided to include them because AFAIK, there are for Win NT/2000/XP
> environment. Those files are included in ant. But if we don't need them I
> can remove it from the distribution.

> What we can do here?
> 1. Remove the files
> 2. Change the header distributed by Ant
> 3. Leave them as they are now.
> Please comment.

 From what I can see these are new scripts and so simple starters for 
Ant. As we include Ant in our dist and provide our own ant scripts we 
can remove the files. For the licensing issue it's the same like above. 
I guess they confirm themselves before their next release that every 
licences are ok.

> Thanks for pointing out all the errors I did, seems like I am too sleepy. :-D

You seemed to been so tired that you sent two different mails :)


View raw message