Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of elecharny@gmail.com
 designates 72.14.220.159 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=Nr7mKfwyn+DesTpB1/mPatttaLZyCLLsI3FXT61Lxo8lpJxkOAdztYdPxYZ9NNfAUh
         +8Pgw8LfHoYhM6Yx00wB6uO43pnKNCXlMaDnLrKJtEbEE3PiMXAqYmv2RJ9/9j3v9fKI
         bhIju+SvBJQo3+5Im5oXWL54R8zBMnsSrQOTw=
Message-ID: <48C50F1B.20009@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:40:11 +0200
From: Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com>
Reply-To: elecharny@nextury.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Re: RAT and MANIFEST.MF
References: <48C4EF91.6040809@otego.com>
 <98d8c0860809080318j20c26b75oc474561d05705a3e@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <98d8c0860809080318j20c26b75oc474561d05705a3e@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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:
>
>   
>> -----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-----
>>
>>     
>
>   


-- 
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel L�charny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org