I think that unless you set up some exclusions you have to be careful to run
mvn clean mvn rat:check or you get a lot of false arguments about stuff generated in the build.... that might be why you get a larger number of problems than I did. thanks david jencks On Jun 15, 2011, at 6:23 AM, Kurt T Stam wrote: > On 6/14/11 7:30 PM, David Jencks wrote: >> -1 >> >> Aside from the build problems that someone might be able to convince me to >> overlook, I ran >> >> mvn rat:check >> >> on the unpacked source zip which showed a lot of files (119) that did not >> have appropriate licensing info. It's possible that some of these can't for >> some kind of format reason but the first few I checked certainly could. If >> some of these can't have license headers I think there's a way to include a >> rat exclusion list where we could document them. > I'm getting: Too many unapproved licenses: 893 > 1. I think it does not like the copyright notices in the header. > * Copyright 2001-2011 The Apache Software Foundation, > > 2. I manually checked some and some files sure have the license missing > completely, so that sure needs fixing. >> I noticed a comment in juddi-portal/README that maven 2.0.6 should be used. >> If this is true for the entire project I think some updating is needed. >> >> I have some workarounds for the build issues I ran into that involve: >> >> - using derby 10.6.2.1 >> - using geronimo jta spec instead of (sun?) javaee specs >> - using geronimo javamail and changing the NotifierTest.testSMTPNotifier to >> expect to pass. >> >> I'd also prefer to see a lot of pom cleanup using dependency management to >> eliminate repetition of version info. >> >> If everyone's happy with this idea I'm happy to update the poms in this way. > Fine by me. >> It might be better for someone more familiar with all the files to look at >> the license issue. > ok I will go through a round of clean up on this. >> BTW I prefer to see vote emails that give the explicit location of the >> source bundle and make clear that it is what is being voted on, not the tag >> or binaries. > Fair enough >> thanks >> david jencks >> >> On Jun 14, 2011, at 6:20 AM, Kurt T Stam wrote: >> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> At some point the planned 'quick 3.0.5 release', turned into a much more >>> substantial release. One of >>> the major features was to support JAX-WS 2.2, and we beefed up the client >>> code substantially. Since we >>> added so much new code this release is now labeled 3.1.0. >>> >>> tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/juddi/tags/juddi-3.1.0/ >>> >>> nexus: >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachejuddi-068/ >>> >>> Please not that the uddi-ws-3.1.0 comes in 2 flavors: by default it is >>> compiled against the JAX-WS 2.2 spec, but we also >>> release a uddi-ws-3.1.0-jaxws21.jar with a 'jaxws21' classifier to support >>> JAX-WS 2.1 deployment environments. >>> >>> Also I have updated the website to reflect the 3.1.0 release: >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/juddi/site/ >>> >>> Please give it a spin and cast your vote in the next 72 hours! >>> >>> My vote: +1 >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> --Kurt >
