Just wanted to make sure. I will update the RC sources.jar and javadoc.jar with versions that put the LICENSE/NOTICE in META-INF. I'll check in the POM and retag as RC2, leaving the current RC2 artifacts on people.a.o in place as there are no code changes. Is everybody okay with that plan?
On 9/24/07, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That settles it for me. Do we need to put LICENSE/NOTICE in META-INF in > source and javadoc or is the root directory acceptable? > > On 9/24/07, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ben Speakmon wrote: > > > I wasn't sure what to make of it either; the release docs don't > > mention it > > > specifically. The source and javadoc jars, BTW, are intended to be > > deployed > > > next to the final build in the maven repo. It won't be hard to make > > sure > > > they get in there. Is there a consensus that it's required for this > > release? > > > > > > > I don't have an official reference either, but I remember votes that > > were canceled because of this. Here is an example for that I found in > > the archives [1]. > > > > Oliver > > > > [1] > > http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--3rd-attempt:-Release-commons-io-1.3.2-t3880798.html > > > > > > > On 9/24/07, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Everything looks good, except for one thing, which I think needs to > > be > > >> fixed: the jar with the javadocs does not contain NOTICE.txt and > > >> LICENSE.txt. (The jar with the sources contains these files, but they > > >> are stored in the top level rather than in META-INF; don't know > > whether > > >> this is problematic.) > > >> > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >
