Sounds good.  The dynamic download was cool but having more places with 
duplicated/manually sync’d info was a bit ugly :-)
I’ll pull and check it out!

— Dale

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 7:44 AM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dale,
> 
> So, I completely removed the usage of the license-maven-plugin and hereby 
> also removed all of these licenses.xml files. 
> Thinking about what I was planning on using it for, seemed a little over the 
> top for just downloading 5 text files. So, I decided to check-in these 
> license texts and to have default maven mechanisms copy them into the project.
> I think things are a lot less complicated this way.
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> Am 02.10.17, 23:09 schrieb "Dale LaBossiere" <dml.apa...@gmail.com>:
> 
>    Hi Chris, I see you added a bunch of comments to the wiki, thanks!
> 
>    I think we has a misunderstanding :-)  There are many artifacts that 
> *have* an entry in license.xml but are not bundled.  e.g., junit, jetty-*.
>    That’s what I was trying to say in the tables.  Shouldn’t only bundled 
> things be present in license.xml?
> 
>    — Dale
> 
> 
>> On Oct 2, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Dale LaBossiere <dml.apa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I did a review and captured what I learned along with questions and/or 
>> problems in new item 21 (at the bottom of) [1]
>> The details (table) are for only console/servlets at the moment.  I’ll be 
>> doing similar for console/server shortly.
>> 
>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/EDGENT/Maven+vs+Gradle 
>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/EDGENT/Maven+vs+Gradle>
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> — Dale
>> 
>>> On Oct 2, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Dale LaBossiere <dml.apa...@gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:dml.apa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I’m on it!
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 2, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de 
>>>> <mailto:christofer.d...@c-ware.de>> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> I just committed some more changes to the java8 and jaca7 console. I hope 
>>>> that now all should be in place and the modules should be ok from a legal 
>>>> point of view. 
>>>> ...
>>>> Please inspect my latest changes and especially their output.
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to