I think Option 2 is better, more clear. Cheers Lei
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Ruilong Huo <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Roman, > > Please let us know if you get a chance to review this. Or someone else who > can help on this? Thanks. > > Best regards, > Ruilong Huo > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Ruilong Huo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Roman, > > > > Currently I am preparing LICENSE, NOTICE, and DISCLAIMER files for Apache > > HAWQ 2.2.0.0-incubating rpm binary release. The components of the binary > > package > > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/ > 2.2.0.0-incubating.RC2/apache-hawq-rpm-2.2.0.0-incubating.tar.gz> > > are as below: > > > > *> tar -xzvf apache-hawq-rpm-2.2.0.0-incubating.tar.gz; tree > > hawq_rpm_packages* > > hawq_rpm_packages > > ├── apache-hawq-2.2.0.0-el7.x86_64.rpm > > ├── apache-tomcat-7.0.62-el6.noarch.rpm > > ├── hawq-ranger-plugin-2.2.0.0-1.el7.centos.noarch.rpm > > ├── pxf-3.2.1.0-1.el6.noarch.rpm > > ├── pxf-hbase-3.2.1.0-1.el6.noarch.rpm > > ├── pxf-hdfs-3.2.1.0-1.el6.noarch.rpm > > ├── pxf-hive-3.2.1.0-1.el6.noarch.rpm > > ├── pxf-jdbc-3.2.1.0-1.el6.noarch.rpm > > ├── pxf-json-3.2.1.0-1.el6.noarch.rpm > > └── pxf-service-3.2.1.0-1.el6.noarch.rpm > > > > Given the LICENSE, NOTICE, and DISCLAIMER for Apache HAWQ source in top > > directory: > > > > *> tree incubator-hawq/* > > incubator-hawq/ > > ├── DISCLAIMER > > ├── LICENSE > > └── NOTICE > > > > We plan to put LICENSE, NOTICE, and DISCLAIMER for binary release in a > > dedicated directory named dist which under top directory. Then these > files > > will be copied to the rpm packages in packaging stage. > > > > Here are two options for the layout of the LICENSE, NOTICE, and > DISCLAIMER > > for the components: > > > > *Option 1: Combine the licenses of all the components into one LICENSE, > > NOTICE, and DISCLAIMER respectively. For example:* > > > > *> cd $APACHE_HAWQ_TOP_DIR; tree dist* > > dist > > ├── DISCLAIMER > > ├── LICENSE > > └── NOTICE > > > > *Option 2: Keep the separated LICENSE, NOTICE, and DISCLAIMER for each of > > the components. For example:* > > > > *> cd $APACHE_HAWQ_TOP_DIR; tree dist/* > > dist/ > > ├── hawq > > │ ├── DISCLAIMER > > │ ├── LICENSE > > │ └── NOTICE > > ├── pxf > > │ ├── DISCLAIMER > > │ ├── LICENSE > > │ └── NOTICE > > ├── pxf-hbase > > │ ├── DISCLAIMER > > │ ├── LICENSE > > │ └── NOTICE > > ├── pxf-hdfs > > │ ├── DISCLAIMER > > │ ├── LICENSE > > │ └── NOTICE > > ├── pxf-hive > > │ ├── DISCLAIMER > > │ ├── LICENSE > > │ └── NOTICE > > ├── pxf-jdbc > > │ ├── DISCLAIMER > > │ ├── LICENSE > > │ └── NOTICE > > ├── pxf-json > > │ ├── DISCLAIMER > > │ ├── LICENSE > > │ └── NOTICE > > ├── pxf-service > > │ ├── DISCLAIMER > > │ ├── LICENSE > > │ └── NOTICE > > ├── ranger-plugin > > │ ├── DISCLAIMER > > │ ├── LICENSE > > │ └── NOTICE > > └── tomcat > > ├── DISCLAIMER > > ├── LICENSE > > └── NOTICE > > > > For option 1, it is easier to maintain the LICENSE, NOTICE, and > DISCLAIMER > > files. However, it contains all the licenses for all the components. Thus > > it is hard to identify which component contains what licenses. > > > > For option 2, it needs extra maintenance effort. But, it is clear that > > what are the licenses for each of the components. > > > > Would you please share you comments and let us know which is better? > > Thanks. > > > > Best regards, > > Ruilong Huo > > >
