felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Custine <chris.cust...@gmail.com>
Subject [DISCUSS] Move to Apache 7 parent pom
Date Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:07:06 GMT
I have forked the Karaf 1.4.0 release thread to discuss David's suggestions
below regarding upgrade felix parent pom 1.2.2 to use the apache 7 pom and
updating the Felix policy on NOTICE files.  I am in support of doing this
but after testing the apache 7 pom idea for Karaf 1.4.0 it is clear that
each subproject will require some tweaking (mostly removing overlapping
plugin configs) to make use of the new apache-release profile.  We could
certainly phase this in because each subproject could test and upgrade as
they wish, but I wanted to bring this up as a separate discussion from the
Karaf 1.4.0 release.

I don't foresee wrapping this discussion up quickly, so I am going to go
ahead and try to release Karaf 1.4.0 again in the mean time.

Chris Custine
FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com
My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com
Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org
Apache Felix :: http://felix.apache.org
Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:18 PM, David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Looking at the exchange on the vote thread and the differences between
> current maven best practice (in my limited understanding) and what felix
> does I think it would be a really good idea to
> 1. upgrade the felix-parent to use the apache 7 pom and simplify all the
> felix projects to rely on its apache-release profile which automatically
> creates the required source bundle sufficient to build the project.
> 2. change or clarify the felix policy on NOTICE files so that they only
> refer to what is actually in the artifact they are in and rely on other
> files such as the DEPENDENCIES generated by the maven-remote-resources
> plugin for information about licenses you are apt to need to consider when
> you use the software.
> (1) is a lot more important than (2) IMNSHO but I have to say I find it
> somewhat infuriating when I find a NOTICE file that includes attributions
> for stuff that isn't included especially when I've found a different
> implementation to substitute.
> thanks
> david jencks

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