On 24 January 2011 18:34, zoe slattery <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24/01/2011 17:23, Jeremy Hughes wrote: >> >> So far, I've checked the source zips' .md5 .sha1 .asc .asc.md5 >> .asc.sha1 files. I've run mvn -Prat on the unzipped source and get a >> problem for each of the DEPENDENCIES files. I think we hit this in 0.2 >> and 0.1 and decided to overlook it as they are generated files. > > Curious - I have just run 'mvn -Prat install' in the release candidate > branch and I _don't_ get a problem with DEPENDENCIES files. > I actually used mvn rat:check when I was checking the release artifacts - > didn't see a problem with DEPENDENCIES there either. > > You are Maven 3? Could that be the difference, I'm running Maven 2.2.1.
I seem to remember seeing this with Maven 2.2.1 from before. I think what happens when doing the release is the DEPENDENCIES file is created then the source zip is created and the DEPENDENCIES file is included in that. Moving from Maven 2.2.1 to 3, I don't think RAT has changed. I just tried it with Maven 2.2.1 and get the same result: ***************************************************** Files with Apache License headers will be marked AL Binary files (which do not require AL headers) will be marked B Compressed archives will be marked A Notices, licenses etc will be marked N AL default-parent/java5-parent/pom.xml AL default-parent/pom.xml !????? DEPENDENCIES N LICENSE N NOTICE AL pom.xml ***************************************************** I don't think it's worth respinning the release for this, as it is a generated file and doesn't have any intellectual property in it. >> >> I'm still to check the binaries though, but not today. >> >> Cheers, >> Jeremy >> >> On 24 January 2011 13:53, zoe slattery<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all >>> >>> I've staged a release candidate 00 for the 0.3 release. Please use this >>> thread for any discussion. If you check the release please will you say >>> exactly what you checked - even if it passes? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Zoė >>> > >
