I did take a quick look at removing these; couldn't figure out how to configure the karaf maven plugin not to include them, maybe we need to add a step to delete them before the plugin creates the archive. Or maybe the plugin will let us avoid them and I didn't spot the config.
On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 at 10:43 Svetoslav Neykov < svetoslav.ney...@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote: > I am cancelling the vote due to the omission of the NOTICE file in the > Karaf distribution. > Take this as a chance to suggest including any new PRs that you think > would be useful. > > > Also, the karaf distro contains ./META-INF/LICENSE which is *just* the > apache license, rather than also including the other 3rd party licenses > (which is done in ./LICENSE, as per the instructions at [2]). Should we > change that as well? Or should we delete the file ./META-INF/LICENSE? > > Note that there's a DEPENDENCIES file in there as well which includes this > information. We already have the same (and more) in the top-level LICENSE > file so I think we can remove them (if at all possible). They are generated > by the maven-karaf-plugin. > > Svet. > > > > On 7.12.2016 г., at 23:34, Aled Sage <aled.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > -1 (binding) > > > > This is because the NOTICE file is missing at the top level of the karaf > distro. In [1], it says "The NOTICE file must included within the > distributed next to the LICENSE file." > > > > I interpret that "must" as meaning we need to produce a new release > candidate, so that the NOTICE file is at the root (next to the LICENSE > file). > > > > Very happy to change my vote (to "+1") if someone with better Apache > knowledge tells me that it's ok to just have the NOTICE in > ./META-INF/NOTICE. > > > > Also, the karaf distro contains ./META-INF/LICENSE which is *just* the > apache license, rather than also including the other 3rd party licenses > (which is done in ./LICENSE, as per the instructions at [2]). Should we > change that as well? Or should we delete the file ./META-INF/LICENSE? > > > > --- > > Other than that, the release looks great - works a treat deploying to > various clouds! > > > > Aled > > > > p.s. even if producing a new RC, I don't think it's worth changing the > vagrant image - we can live with "ubuntu/wily64" for this release. > > > > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#attribution-notices > > [2] > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distributing-code-under-several-licenses > > > > > > On 07/12/2016 11:57, Geoff Macartney wrote: > >> thanks Richard, > >> > >> I thought that would be the case but worth asking. Hope the above PR > will > >> address it and can be cherry-picked for the rc. > >> > >> Geoff > >> > >> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 at 11:43 Richard Downer <rich...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Geoff, all, > >>> > >>> It's generally required that release artifacts have the LICENSE and > NOTICE > >>> files in the root. Artifacts that are machine-read like JARs and their > ilk > >>> can be excepted, but they should instead have those files in the most > >>> appropriate place - META-INF for JARs. > >>> > >>> So this would be a release blocker, IMO. However I will at least look > at > >>> the release candidate and test it before casting a vote :-) > >>> > >>> Richard. > >>> > >>> > >>> On 7 December 2016 at 11:34, Geoff Macartney < > >>> geoff.macart...@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Actually I see the Karaf distro does have a NOTICE file, it's just in > the > >>>> META-INF directory. Is there any rule that says the file must be in > the > >>>> root directory? Maybe it's fine as it is? > >>>> > >>>> I've raised https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-dist/pull/68 in any > case, > >>>> to > >>>> have a copy of NOTICE in the top level. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 at 10:17 Geoff Macartney < > >>>> geoff.macart...@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> thanks Svet, > >>>>> > >>>>> I'll say +0, think we should fix the NOTICE in Karaf distro. No > >>> strong > >>>>> feeling as to what we should do with the Vagrant - while I agree it > >>> would > >>>>> be nice in general to have an up-to-date image in the Vagrant, if > there > >>>> are > >>>>> issues with Xenial and Vagrant then that particular upgrade might be > >>> more > >>>>> of a hindrance to users than a help. > >>>>> > >>>>> My other checks done on this, for completeness' sake: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> [x] Download links work. > >>>>> [x] Binaries work. (classic launcher, Karaf, RPM build) > >>>>> [x] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid. > >>>>> [x] Expanded source archive matches contents of RC tag. > >>>>> [x] Expanded source archive builds and passes tests. > >>>>> [x] LICENSE is present and correct. (classic launcher, Karaf, RPM) > >>>>> [x] NOTICE is present and correct, including copyright date (classic, > >>>> RPM; > >>>>> for Karaf see [2] previously) > >>>>> [x] All files have license headers where appropriate. > >>>>> [-] All dependencies have compatible licenses. > >>>>> [x] No compiled archives bundled in source archive. > >>>>> > >>>>> Tested on Ubuntu (RPM on Centos7): > >>>>> > >>>>> Classic launcher (tested with Java 7 & Java 8) > >>>>> Catalog sample app 1 deployed on AWS > >>>>> sample app 2 deployed on GCE > >>>>> sample app 3 deployed on softlayer > >>>>> sample app 4 deployed on openstack nova > >>>>> > >>>>> Karaf launcher > >>>>> sample app 1 deployed on BYON > >>>>> sample app 2 deployed on AWS > >>>>> sample app 3 deployed on GCE => not supported on Karaf; deployed > >>> instead > >>>>> on openstack nova > >>>>> sample app 4 deployed on softlayer > >>>>> > >>>>> RPM build: > >>>>> RPM installs and runs Brooklyn successfully > >>>>> > >>>>> Tests with "br" tool (on MacOS, Linux): > >>>>> Catalog updates > >>>>> Applications stopped > >>>>> br app > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Geoff > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 at 07:31 Svetoslav Neykov < > >>>>> svetoslav.ney...@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Geoff, > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] Documentation and web site content is excluded on purpose. > >>>>> [2] Yes it should. Good spot! > >>>>> > >>>>> Svet. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 6.12.2016 г., at 19:54, Geoff Macartney < > >>>>> geoff.macart...@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote: > >>>>>> A couple of questions: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [1] Should the apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-src archive contain the > >>>>>> brooklyn-docs? (It hasn't in previous releases, but still worth > >>>> asking.) > >>>>>> [2] Should the Karaf distro folder have its own copy of the NOTICE > >>>> file? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 at 11:52 Svetoslav Neykov < > >>>>>> svetoslav.ney...@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is to call for a vote for the release of Apache Brooklyn > >>> 0.10.0. > >>>>>>> This release comprises of a source code distribution, and a > >>>>> corresponding > >>>>>>> binary distribution, and Maven artifacts. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The source and binary distributions, including signatures, digests, > >>>> etc. > >>>>>>> can > >>>>>>> be found at: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/brooklyn/apache- > >>>> brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1 > >>>>>>> The artifact SHA-256 checksums are as follows: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 9b75abf099e1b0ac2ff3193ef58b53e4d323bd377faefac1672aef61d994b45c > >>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-1.noarch.rpm > >>>>>>> 6d86188fe2e210fa3f0e40220d236c43512298da1c158c95f4497ea54c3882e7 > >>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-bin.tar.gz > >>>>>>> 5b37d0d2da964c91bc1655a5ce1bb277e5f84265906c479c697821a855235a2e > >>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-bin.zip > >>>>>>> f1d66690fbf4786b1abc762b2c215dd392e96c1ac0eee49088857c91594b4f79 > >>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-karaf.tar.gz > >>>>>>> 54d3b492e477c1877cb0bb9fd17063403596a02fbc3fdf9af588827053175bad > >>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-karaf.zip > >>>>>>> 7d8ed704cc2146756f6ac6616de03c3d5d71953ff60094c1e017efdefb17c079 > >>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-src.tar.gz > >>>>>>> a9e652596800010d01982703aaf90f0ca76e8d471b0399717c1d96619c72865c > >>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-src.zip > >>>>>>> 55e5044ce2a6ae76886bb10d6e68582ef94b8f024513840c1aa8203c068eccd0 > >>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-client-cli-linux.tar.gz > >>>>>>> 45799528ed0444b6a600918d33419bcf4d7c0eaf5cb58620a2c9ae3f7320ca62 > >>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-client-cli-linux.zip > >>>>>>> 21bb2186787414226220101c6080ec0afffbb8d008c46a33a39b51bceb65600a > >>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-client-cli-macosx.tar.gz > >>>>>>> 8d80ed81d5f1940700e838b3d6bf1255214706ede5a51a48bf46214a0b87d5c4 > >>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-client-cli-macosx.zip > >>>>>>> a2cb0b1efc7f93da96cae2495e2db63834cfaec29b5eefcf8107f7bec38e6bd3 > >>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-client-cli-windows.tar.gz > >>>>>>> 61b96bc68306aedb0e3477083077c940893e27b1a58322ad296f120fd5f40978 > >>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-client-cli-windows.zip > >>>>>>> 13462d97693607a33d59a0a8288c20a2cd2d62607df796a5db5b332a183a7234 > >>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-vagrant.tar.gz > >>>>>>> c67e134d4eb93ce1e6cc8124c31ca29bedd38bd2ea41eb9389a6335ee7c1ba0b > >>>>>>> *apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1-vagrant.zip > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The Nexus staging repository for the Maven artifacts is located at: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ > >>>> orgapachebrooklyn-1030 > >>>>>>> All release artifacts are signed with the key with the following > >>>>>>> fingerprint: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 9F9C CBDA 89B3 0F81 162C 673C 0FE9 0F00 C0DE F000 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> KEYS file available here: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/brooklyn/KEYS > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The artifacts were built from git commit IDs: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> brooklyn: c496c5e9167f9320d08c21d5bce50f16a2325268 > >>>>>>> brooklyn-client: 0594d27aa68ac1c86e2b4672a447336042d92496 > >>>>>>> brooklyn-dist: 09a1ca89cd7d5a468438025d7f2121ec7c52ffc6 > >>>>>>> brooklyn-docs: f75d094f51c49cd5aa51e213bafc51da3d4ff01c > >>>>>>> brooklyn-library: 1a1962382413b0e5adbfb52bb33968df265b35c5 > >>>>>>> brooklyn-server: 635068a6985edf2e5dfbb9598d8dde2890c32ad3 > >>>>>>> brooklyn-ui: a6e2e8bccfdd98b4f7155b5be86f5b85149e0f33 > >>>>>>> All of the above have been tagged as "apache-brooklyn-0.10.0-rc1" > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Brooklyn 0.10.0. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > >>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Brooklyn 0.10.0 > >>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion > >>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>>> Svet. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> CHECKLIST for reference > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [ ] Download links work. > >>>>>>> [ ] Binaries work. > >>>>>>> [ ] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid. > >>>>>>> [ ] Expanded source archive matches contents of RC tag. > >>>>>>> [ ] Expanded source archive builds and passes tests. > >>>>>>> [ ] LICENSE is present and correct. > >>>>>>> [ ] NOTICE is present and correct, including copyright date. > >>>>>>> [ ] All files have license headers where appropriate. > >>>>>>> [ ] All dependencies have compatible licenses. > >>>>>>> [ ] No compiled archives bundled in source archive. > >>>>>>> [ ] I follow this project’s commits list. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > > > >
