cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: questions about coho audit-license-headers and check-license
Date Thu, 13 Aug 2015 23:30:35 GMT
So I need to re-import all the pgp keys?

I just did the two import commands here:
https://github.com/apache/cordova-coho/blob/master/docs/setting-up-gpg.md#importing-pmc-members-pgp-keys

Do I need to do it again?

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:17 PM Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think someone else on the team needs to key sign Steve's key (use GPG
> Keychain). I just did for both his apache and gmail keys.
>
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Homer, Tony <tony.homer@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for replying Steve - I see what you mean about dependencies,
> hadn't
> > thought about that.
> >
> > When I did `coho verify-archive` I got "gpg: WARNING: This key is not
> > certified with a trusted signature!".
> > I guess this is ok, but is there any way to address the warning?
> >
> >
> > On 8/13/15, 2:47 PM, "Steven Gill" <stevengill97@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Audit license headers is the important one.
> > >
> > >At the end of the day, we aren't shipping any of our dependencies. They
> > >are
> > >all downloaded by our users. We can contact module authors who don't
> have
> > >license listed to get them to list one.
> > >
> > >-Steve
> > >
> > >On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Homer, Tony <tony.homer@intel.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm trying to validate the tools release.
> > >> I'm following the instructions[1], but I haven't used coho before and
> am
> > >> not sure about the results.
> > >>
> > >> `coho audit-license-headers -r js -r lib -r cli -r plugman`
> > >> The doc warns that audit-license-headers has false positives, so I'm
> > >> ignoring the following results:
> > >> ./appveyor.yml
> > >> ./tasks/vendor/commonjs-tests/*
> > >> ./tasks/vendor/jasmine/*
> > >> ./spec-cordova/*
> > >> ./spec-plugman/*
> > >> ./src/plugman/help.txt
> > >> Are these are all false positives?
> > >> If yes, I think the audit-license-headers results are ok.
> > >>
> > >> `coho check-license -r tools`
> > >> I got a lot of results so I started adding what I think are false
> > >> positives to the license filter:
> > >> "ISC","Public Domain","WTFPL","ASF","Unlicense","Artistic-2.0"
> > >> I also updated to nlf 1.3.2 in order to get nicer output and a fix for
> > >>the
> > >> single license under licenses bug [2].
> > >> I still get 88 results for packages with no license entry in
> > >>package.json.
> > >> (plus xmldom, which has a syntax error in the license entry but has an
> > >> Apache-compatible license)
> > >>
> > >> Are "ISC","Public Domain","WTFPL","ASF","Unlicense","Artistic-2.0" all
> > >> Apache-compatible?
> > >> Are packages with no license entry ok - any additonal action required?
> > >> Should I submit a PR to add the additional license strings to the
> filter
> > >> and update nlf?
> > >>
> > >> [1]
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/cordova-coho/blob/master/docs/tools-release-pro
> > >>cess.md#test
> > >> [2] https://github.com/iandotkelly/nlf/pull/22
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cordova.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cordova.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cordova.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cordova.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message