incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)
Date Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:51:17 GMT
On 31/03/2008, Dan Diephouse <dan.diephouse@mulesource.com> wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>  > On 31/03/2008, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >
>  >>
>  >
>
> > -1: There are MD5 and SHA1 digests in the directory, but the archives
>  > have no signatures.
>  >
>  >
>
> OK, I will fix this.
>
> >>  Maven Repository: http://people.apache.org/~dandiep/abdera-take6/
>  >>
>  >>
>  >
>  > -0: The abdera-bundle-0.4.0-incubating-sources.jar does not appear to
>  > have any content - only the META-INF directory is present. Is that
>  > correct?
>  >
>
> This is just a by-product of Maven. We can delete it.
>
> > -1: The NOTICE files in that jar (and others) contains far too much.
>  > The NOTICE file is for required attribtions ONLY (e.g. as per an About box)
>  > There's really no need to repeat ASF for each project used by Abdera.
>  >
>
> Having too much information in the NOTICE files is not a crime. The
>  Maven remote-resources plugin aggregates all this stuff for us so we
>  never miss any notice that we need to put in.

Unfortunately the plugin generates incorrect information.
It *is* a problem having all the redundant information.

See for example:

http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
also
http://wiki.apache.org/legal/3party/notice
http://wiki.apache.org/legal/3party/notice/discuss

> > -1: The LICENSE files need to either contain copies of the 3rd party
>  > licenses, or they need to have a reference to the 3rd party licences.
>  > Equally, there is no need for the lib directory to contain copies of
>  > the AL for every ASF product.
>  >
>
> Why does the LICENSE file need to have a copy of all the other licenses?
>  These are contained in the lib/ directory like many other ASF projects.
>

See the last paragraph of:

http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new

>  Re: the ASL license in lib/ - once again having too much information is
>  not a crime. This is a service to uesrs so they know where the libraries
>  came from.

I agree the source is useful, but the place for this is the LICENSE file.

> > -1: RAT report says:
>  >
>  > 99 Unknown Licenses
>  >
>  > Some of these are trivial, but most require an AL header.
>  >
>
> Not true - there is not consensus that properties/xml files need to have
>  headers. All the Java source code files have headers. If there are
>  specific files that you feel should have a license that don't please
>  list them and explain why. I'm not saying that we didn't miss something,
>  but I am saying that the ones that I know about don't necessarily
>  require a header.

Yes, they do, see:

http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions

> > What is the SVN tag that corresponds with the archives?
>  >
>  >
>
> the branch will be tagged once its released.
>
>  Dan
>
>
>  --
>  Dan Diephouse
>  MuleSource
>  http://mulesource.com | http://netzooid.com
>
>
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>  For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message