Hi, On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: > The only other potential problem is that the > license/notice/dependencies files may not conform strictly to > incubator guidelines. Specifically, we are not including a different > set of files with a bin release vs. a source release, and also it was > unclear whether our format (which was once again based on Lucene/Solr) > is still acceptable or not. The thread in general@i.a.o provided some > examples, but it is not clear whether those were the ONLY acceptable > formats. I am hoping for Jukka and Tommaso's feedback here before we > present this artifact to the incubator.
Ideally the licensing metadata (i.e. the LICENSE and NOTICE files) should only cover material contained in that specific package. See [1] for a related discussion from a few years ago. At least back then it seemed acceptable for a project to also only maintain a single set of license metadata that covers the contents of both source and binary distributions. AFAIUI that approach is in use by many Apache projects. About the RC more generally, I find the download-via-svn target a bit troublesome as it makes the release depend on content in svn. That essentially turns the svn server into a release distribution channel, which it definitely shouldn't be. I think it's fine to manage the set of binary dependencies (that aren't available in a stable third party location like Maven Central) in svn, but a release should not try to access them from there. Instead we should for example package them up in a separate -lib or -deps archive and make it available for download along with the source release through the standard Apache mirroring network. That archive should also come with appropriate licensing metadata that's currently lacking in bin-dist. [1] http://markmail.org/message/bttmkavpicxxg7gl BR, Jukka Zitting
