incubator-wave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael MacFadden <michael.macfad...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Feedback from Incubator Vote
Date Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:29:22 GMT
True,

I would hate to see us inject ivy if we know we are going to just switch
to maven.

~Michael

On 6/21/13 4:34 AM, "Christian Grobmeier" <grobmeier@gmail.com> wrote:

>If I remember correctly, there is a maven transition nearly completed.
>Ivy is a good option, but if maven is already done, why not use that?
>
>On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>> Or use Ivy to download from the Maven repo.
>>
>> Upayavira
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak) wrote:
>>> Presumably we want wiab to be independent from third party download
>>> websites, so the "get-third-party-libs" script should point to our own
>>> mirror of all those jars?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Angus Turner
>>> <angusisfree@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>> > +1 to adding all the third party .jars to an ant task. There's a
>>>tonne of
>>> > them in there, and it's hard to keep track of what licence what
>>>library is
>>> > under.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks
>>> > Angus Turner
>>> > angusisfree@gmail.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Ali Lown wrote:
>>> > > > It looks like RC3 will fail at the Incubator vote. (This is both
>>>fine
>>> > > > and expected)
>>> > >
>>> > > Yep.
>>> > >
>>> > > > This also conveniently lets us merge some of the other fixes (for
>>> > > > example the broken translations/eclipse) in for RC4.
>>> > >
>>> > > Okay, but don't absorb *too* many changes.
>>> > >
>>> > > > The main problem seems to (still) be the third_party/* files
>>> > > > (particularly in the source release - I don't know if they are
>>>okay to
>>> > > > be included in the 'binary' release).
>>> > >
>>> > > A *source* release must be source only. Third party jars aren't
>>>source,
>>> > > so shouldn't be included. They are fine in a binary release.
>>> > >
>>> > > > It looks like the easiest way to handle this is to have them all
>>> > > > downloaded during the get-third-party ant task.
>>> > >
>>> > > That would be a reasonable thing for the build script in the src
>>> > > distribution to do, but so long as there is some way (even manual)
>>>for
>>> > > that to happen, I don't see it as an issue.
>>> > >
>>> > > > Some comments were raised about the src/python/api files not
>>>being
>>> > > > correctly licensed. Manually inspecting them it appears rat
>>>wasn't
>>> > > > complaining because they are all Apache licensed, but we have
>>> > > > 'Licensed under the Apache License' used for some, and (the
>>>correct?)
>>> > > > 'Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation' in others.
>>> > >
>>> > > The first would be valid for code written elsewhere, and the
>>>latter for
>>> > > code being maintained here. Which are they?
>>> > >
>>> > > > We (may) need to file for an ECCN given we use bouncy-castle.
>>>(Is this
>>> > > > only an issue if we include it, if we have it fetched by a
>>>separate
>>> > > > task (given the IPMC don't seem to like having the jars shipped
>>>with
>>> > > > Wave) is it still a problem?)
>>> > >
>>> > > The ECCN stuff is for 'exporting encryption'. If we release a
>>> > > convenience binary, then as far as the US govt is concerned, we
>>>need to
>>> > > do the ECCN stuff.
>>> > >
>>> > > Upayavira
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Saludos,
>>>      Bruno González
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com
>>> http://www.stenyak.com
>
>
>
>--
>http://www.grobmeier.de
>https://www.timeandbill.de



Mime
View raw message