directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Seelmann <seelm...@apache.org>
Subject Re: RAT and MANIFEST.MF
Date Tue, 09 Sep 2008 06:18:38 GMT
Hi,

I excluded the MANIFEST.MF from the rat report.

Stefan

Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> The syntax for a Manisfest.mf file does not allow comments, so you can't
> include a header. We already tied to inject such a header a few months
> ago, but without success.
> 
> Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
>> Hi Felix,
>>
>> The license header is mandatory on all source file ("Source File
>> Headers for
>> Code Developed at the ASF") as it is mentionned in this page [1].
>>
>> I don't think the manifest file can be considered as a source file.
>> Generally it's more a generated file, but in some cases (studio's case
>> mainly) we need to store them in SVN.
>>
>> So I think (and it's only my personal POV), the license header is not
>> useful
>> in this kind of files.
>>
>> What do others think ?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Pierre-Arnaud
>>
>> [1] - http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Felix Knecht <felix@otego.com> wrote:
>>
>>  
> Hi all
> 
> I'm not sure, but do manifest.mf files really do need to have a license
> header? If not we should exculde the manifest
> files in the TLP pom from RAT.
> 
> Felix
>>>

>>
>>   




Mime
View raw message