flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Date Tue, 02 Sep 2014 00:42:12 GMT
Don't know if it is a blocker. I can ask legal. I'm just wondering if the current text properly
indicates the permissive license for English.
Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.

Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:


> The concern:  The README points folks to openoffice.org and
> http://hunspell.sourceforge.net.

And in your view is this a blocker and requires another release candidate or can we fix in
the next release?

> 1) Are we sure it is ok to add the asdoc into the source package?

There is no requirement to put it in a separate package and most apache projects don't have
separate zip for docs, http seems about the only exception and in it's case that makes sense
you don't normally deploy docs about http server live. IMO With a library you do want the
docs with the source so that people using the code know how to use it.

> I would have to add those files as exceptions during a RAT run to get clean
> results.

You can ignore them or pass a -e or -E option to rat.

> 2) And if you do decide to tweak that, should the binary packages be in a
> binaries folder on dist?

Again there is no requirement to do that and it varies from project to project / release to
release how the release area is organised.


View raw message