incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Review of binary tar ball for Apache Falcon (incubating) 0.3 RC4
Date Tue, 20 Aug 2013 10:45:28 GMT
On 20 August 2013 06:19, Srikanth Sundarrajan <sriksun@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> We had recently called for a vote on Apache Falcon 0.3 RC4 (source tar ball) and the
result has been announced  (http://s.apache.org/wLO). We intend to also make a binary tar
ball available for user convenience. We would really appreciate if someone on this mailing
list could take a few minutes to review it for compliance.
>
> The tar ball and signatures are available at http://people.apache.org/~sriksun/falcon-release/0.3-rc4-bin/

The NOTICE file starts with:
=========================================================================
==  NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of                    ==
==  the Apache License, Version 2.0,                                   ==
==  in this case for the Apache Falcon distribution.                   ==
=========================================================================

This is wrong; it should be removed.
The first two lines should be:

Apache Falcon (incubating)
Copyright 2011-2013 The Apache Software Foundation

i.e. no blank lines between them.

The rest of the NOTICE file is for *required* notices.
And they must only be required notices for software that is actually included.

It's not obvious that *any* of the attributions are actually required.
Remember that the NOTICE file must only contain required attributions; see:

http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice

==

It's quite difficult to find the licences for the individual jars in LICENSE.txt
For example, at first I thought there was no license for
activation-1.1.jar, but then I discovered that this is covered by the
"javax" section.
It would be a lot easier to follow (and manage as dependencies
changed) if the jar names were itemised in the LICENSE.txt file, along
with pointers to their licenses.
It's not necessary for the licenses to be included in LICENSE.txt,
they can be in separate files so long as LICENSE.txt references them
clearly.

I could not find a license reference for:
annotations-1.3.2.jar
aopalliance-1.0.jar

and several others don't appear to have licenses.

==

The binary file is much larger than it need be; several jars are
included twice in the top level jar in different directories.
And there are two different versions of some of the jars.
Furthermore, just about all the jars are also included in the falcon.war file.
That does not have any identical duplicates, because the jars are all
in a single directory.
However it does have two versions of servlet-api and stax-api, as well as
commons-logging-1.1.jar/commons-logging-api-1.1.jar
commons-beanutils-1.8.3.jar
commons-beanutils-core-1.8.0.jar

That seems unnecessary; each jar could be included once and copied
into any required additional locations as part of the installation.
Mixing jar versions in the same directory is also likely to result in
some classpath problems.

> Regards
> Srikanth Sundarrajan
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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