incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Syncope 1.0.0-RC1-incubating / 2nd attempt
Date Tue, 15 May 2012 07:45:36 GMT
Le 5/15/12 9:31 AM, Francesco Chicchiriccò a écrit :
> On 14/05/2012 20:45, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Emmanuel 
>> Lécharny<elecharny@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> Le 5/14/12 6:42 PM, Christian Grobmeier a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Can you please let me know which license XPP uses? I could not find 
>>>> informatino in NOTICE and did not find a website which helped me. 
>>>> its necessary to clarify that as xpp3 is in the war file release. 
>>>> Once you told me, I will give my +1
>>> Clearly missing in the N&L files.
>> OK. Guess this should be fixed with a new attempt then.
>
> Will do ASAP - guess we are trying to beat some record at Syncope: I 
> know that Flex made it in seven attempts, we are approaching... ;-)
>
> Jokes apart, we are talking here about XPP3, a transitive dependency 
> of XStream which is instead a declared dependency of Syncope (core).
> We honestly did not consider at all such dependencies in L&N files, 
> and there are quite some: what's the best practice for such cases? I 
> see no option but using the maven dependency plugin in order to find 
> all transitive dependencies and update L&N files consequently.
>
> Is this correct? Basically, I feel this like breaking the Maven 
> dependency resolution...
I must admit I'm a bit puzzled.

IMO, the L&N files should only contain the required licenses and notice 
for deps we are explicitely declaring in the poms, as they are part of 
the build. The fact that the built wars include transitive dependencies 
is a by-product of the build. In other words, if a 3rd party we include 
itself depends on some other libs, then it's this 3rd party L&N files to 
explicitely include the required L&N, not ours.

So XPP is not included by us, and should not be added in the N&L, as I 
initially (wrongly) thought.

Regarding the distinction between sources vs binary N&L files, my 
perception is that we should keep all the required (ie if it's 
explicitely asked by the 3rd party license) 3rd party Licenses, and 
nothing more. I do think we are pretty much ok here. Sebastian, if you 
have some libs that you think should not be present in the N&L files, 
could you name them ?

Thanks !


-- 
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com


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


Mime
View raw message