directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot" ...@marcelot.net>
Subject Re: RAT and MANIFEST.MF
Date Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:18:15 GMT
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:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> 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
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkjE75EACgkQ2lZVCB08qHGGxACgvYgsXfc6js9Te06k9+XfkJTo
> BasAn0ipT1vew8xqHn0ItfYJgKZuQbgC
> =qreI
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

Mime
View raw message