On 6/10/10 8:54 AM, Richard S. Hall wrote: > On 6/9/10 17:11, Justin Edelson wrote: >> Hmmm. When I looked at the framework DEPENDENCIES file, there was a >> reference to codehaus, but I didn't think the framework depends upon >> codehaus libraries, just some Maven plugin. > > I think it was the RAT plugin, but this has since moved to Apache, right? My (albeit very vague) understanding is that it is in the process of being moved. In any case, the framework pom still references the codehaus version.
I think it very classy to acknowledge plugins like this. It just isn't clear to me that, based on your original email, that was your intent. Justin > > -> richard > >> >> Justin >> >> On Jun 9, 2010, at 4:49 PM, David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> The DEPENDENCIES file is completely optional as far as apache policy >>> is concerned. I wrote the maven code that generates these with the >>> intention of giving users hints about the other software that would >>> likely be needed to actually use the artifact containing the >>> DEPENDENCIES file. As such, it only includes (appropriately scoped) >>> dependencies, not all the maven stuff that may have been used to >>> generate the artifact. >>> >>> Since felix is an osgi based project that uses osgi to hook up >>> bundles, and avoids require-bundle like the plague, and there's no >>> good reason to suppose that the maven dependencies will be the actual >>> providers of the required imports, a strong case could be made that >>> felix should simply not include DEPENDENCIES files. >>> >>> thanks >>> david jencks >>> >>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Richard S. Hall wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/9/10 14:52, Justin Edelson wrote: >>>>> Richard- >>>>> Perhaps this is supposed to be obvious, but I think it would be >>>>> helpful to >>>>> define the term "uses" with respect to the DEPENDENCIES file. IIUC, it >>>>> includes dependencies (in any scope) as well as software executed >>>>> as part of >>>>> the build (i.e. Maven Plugins), but the inclusion of the latter may >>>>> not be >>>>> intuitive. >>>>> >>>> >>>> True. We need to be clearer... >>>> >>>> -> richard >>>> >>>>> Justin >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Richard S. >>>>> Hall<he...@ungoverned.org>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> With the latest release of the framework and Gogo modules, we've >>>>>> tried to >>>>>> update the release process for how we handle the NOTICE file. Our >>>>>> past usage >>>>>> is apparently not aligned with the intended usage, where the >>>>>> NOTICE file >>>>>> should only contained notices for included third-party software whose >>>>>> license requires notice. Our new approach (for now) is this: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Include a NOTICE file which contains only required notices. >>>>>> 2. Include a DEPENDENCIES file which contains our acknowledgments >>>>>> about the software the subproject uses. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the most part, this isn't a major hassle and largely boils >>>>>> down to >>>>>> this: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Rename the current NOTICE file to DEPENDENCIES. >>>>>> 2. Create a new NOTICE file that contains notices only for the "used" >>>>>> software requiring notices in the DEPENDENCIES file. >>>>>> >>>>>> Although the new DEPENDENCIES file is very similar to the old >>>>>> NOTICE file, >>>>>> the template is slightly different as indicated here: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FELIX/DEPENDENCIES+file+template+%28PROPOSED%29 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, in the long term we can try to move to automating the >>>>>> generation >>>>>> of the NOTICE and/or DEPENDENCIES files, which would make our >>>>>> lives simpler. >>>>>> If any subprojects currently are able to automate this >>>>>> information, as long >>>>>> as the generated files contain information consistent with what is >>>>>> proposed >>>>>> here, then the exact formatting is not that important. But for hand >>>>>> generated files, follow this template. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want to see examples, look in the framework or gogo >>>>>> subprojects. >>>>>> >>>>>> -> richard >>>>>> >>>>>> p.s. This is obviously all open for discussion to the specifics, >>>>>> but until >>>>>> then we should use this approach for releases in an effort to >>>>>> better align >>>>>> with Apache process (with perhaps the exception of Karaf since >>>>>> if/when it >>>>>> goes TLP then its PMC will decide how to do releases). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>
