Hi I have updated the artifacts, so the correct NOTICE is available.
regards Leonardo Uribe On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > +1 if the NOTICE is fixed > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Grant Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +1 if the NOTICE is fixed. > > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> > >> Leonardo Uribe schrieb: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Leonardo Uribe <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Simon Kitching > >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > >> > > >> > Leonardo Uribe schrieb: > >> > > Hi, > >> > > > >> > > I was running the needed tasks to get the 1.1.8 release of > >> > Apache > >> > > MyFaces Tomahawk out. > >> > > >> > Some initial test results: > >> > > >> > The tomahawk-1.1.8 jar works well with Facelets + > >> > Mojarra1.2.0_09 + java1.6. > >> > > >> > For the "staging repo" files deployed here: > >> > > >> > http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/tomahawk118<http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118> > >> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118> > >> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118> > >> > The binary jar license, manifest all look ok. > >> > Checksums all look ok. > >> > > >> > Oddly, the NOTICE file in the binary jarfile has nothing but > the > >> > standard ASF claim. However the NOTICE in the source jar has a > >> > lot more > >> > credits in it. Looks like the NOTICE in the binary file could > >> > be wrong... > >> > > >> > And on both NOTICE files, it says "copyright 2004-2007" which > >> > should > >> > probably be updated. > >> > > >> > > >> > That's strange but true, the notice should be the same for all. > >> > I'll take a look. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > The problem was a override when unpacking shared tomahawk sources. > >> > This was fixed and updated the part of copyright to "copyright > >> > 2004-2008". The new artifacts will be generated after the question > >> > about optional dependency to commons is solved. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I'm not convinced about this change to the tomahawk pom: > >> > > >> > <!-- Transitive dependency from commons-fileupload. > >> > in 1.2 it was declared optional, but t:inputFileUpload > >> > uses it indirectly, so it is necessary to include it > >> > in our pom as runtime dependency --> > >> > <dependency> > >> > <groupId>commons-io</groupId> > >> > <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId> > >> > <version>1.3.2</version> > >> > <scope>runtime</scope> > >> > </dependency> > >> > > >> > I think that this should indeed be an optional dependency; if > >> > someone > >> > wants to use Tomahawk but not use the t:inputFileUpload, then > >> > why should > >> > we force commons-io to be included in their classpath? > >> > > >> > > >> > This change was introduced on 1.1.7, since from commons-io 1.2, > >> > this library was marked as optional. From other point of view if > >> > someone does not want commons-io to be included in their classpath > >> > he/she can exclude it. Good question. In my opinion one or other > >> > it is the same (read it as +0 taking the + to let it as is), but I > >> > prefer add to the classpath by default because if not, every user > >> > of t:inputFileUpload must add this dependency by hand. It could be > >> > good to have a community point of view about it. > >> > > >> > > >> > In my opinion, it is more easier use this for exclude commons-io > >> > dependency: > >> > > >> > <dependency> > >> > <groupId>org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk</groupId> > >> > <artifactId>tomahawk</artifactId> > >> > > >> > <version>1.1.8</version> > >> > <exclusions> > >> > <exclusion> > >> > <groupId>commons-io</groupId> > >> > <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId> > >> > </exclusion> > >> > </exclusions> > >> > > >> > </dependency> > >> > > >> > In the other case, you need to find the proper version of commons-io > >> > (requires that users check tomahawk 1.1.8 pom) and add it as > >> > dependency if the user wants to use t:inputFileUpload. > >> > >> Ok, I'm convinced, particularly as this change was already in 1.1.7. So > >> no objection from me on the commons-io dependency. > >> > >> > >> Regards, Simon > >> > >> -- > >> -- Emails in "mixed" posting style will be ignored > >> -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style) > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Grant Smith > > > > > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >
