cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Antonio Gallardo" <agalla...@agssa.net>
Subject Re: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1/legal LICENSE.ant
Date Tue, 17 Feb 2004 01:23:59 GMT
Joerg Heinicke dijo:
> 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).

Don't worry. It is just an internal approach. When I update the lib in the
Cocoon CVS the normal procedure is also change the date of the lib:
See line 954 in:
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/cocoon-2.1/lib/jars.xml?r1=1.159&r2=1.160&diff_format=h

See line 946 in:
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/cocoon-2.1/lib/jars.xml?r1=1.149&r2=1.150&diff_format=h

etc.

But because I was too sleepy I committed not desired files. Sorry again
for my mistake.


>
> 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.

I will check and import it if they already did it. AFAIK, we cannot change
3rd party distribution. But can we change it in Ant case? I mean from the
legal side of the thing.

>
>>>>               tools/lib ant.jar
>>>
>>>Version?
>>
>>
>> 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 build.sh 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 :)

Yep. I sleeped for 5 minuts before posting this second mail.

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo


Mime
View raw message