Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > >Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > >>You didn't tell us, how you are using Rat: > >> > >> . Maven Plugin: Use the excludes and/or includes properties, see > >> > >> http://creadur.apache.org/rat/apache-rat-plugin/check-mojo.html > >> > >>- Ant Tasks: The rat-report task uses a standard Ant fileset to specify > >>files > >> that are being checked. These can contain nested excludes > >> specifications: > >> > >> http://creadur.apache.org/rat/apache-rat-plugin/check-mojo.html > > > >Also an example of using the Ant task for RAT directly (no maven) > >to provide a separate "excludesfile" file with various patterns > >to exclude: > >Re: RAT running nicely against Forrest with excludes > >http://s.apache.org/jmd > > It's been on my mind for a while that the command line isn't great ATM. > If you're happy to be using rat that way, I'd be very interested to > understand more about your use case :-)
Forrest uses an Ant-based build and deployment system. We get both Gump and Buildbot to run RAT for us. > BTW > > 1. We're pushing towards the first release of Whisker - this tool helps > with generating composite legal documents (LICENSE and NOTICE etc) and > verifying that the contents of a distribution (as opposed to source > code) are accounted for licensing-wise. If this sounds like something > that you might be interested, please jump in - we'd be very happy to > understand more potential use cases :-) That could be helpful for Forrest. I have a tool that i wrote specifically for the Forrest situation, called "licer" which correlates the licenses of packaged dependencies. I should try to verify the results with Whisker. -David > 2. If you're using a build system other than Ant or Maven, please let us > know. We're happy to tool up other build system given active users to > help us understand the use case :-) > > Robert
