[X] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released: Looks like we have 5 files missing licensing information.
7 Unknown Licenses ******************************* Unapproved licenses: The five files below appear to be missing any kind of licensing information. The rest of the files in this directory have licensing information. myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/core/_EvalHandlers.js myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/core/_RuntimeQuirks.js myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/xhrCore/engine/BaseRequest.js myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_DomExperimental.js myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/dojo-LICENSE.TXT "New" BSD or AFL 2.1. Bsd is approved, so maybe just add to exclude list. myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/facelets-LICENSE.txt APL 2, but unusual format? -- add to exclude list? Below is the link describing what we need to do to add files to an exclude list. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jackrabbit-dev/200907.mbox/%[email protected]%3E On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks! Not sure how I missed that one. Withdrawing my vote. I'll > let you know how it turns out. > > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi >> >> This artifact: >> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemyfaces-034/org/apache/myfaces/core/myfaces-core-module/2.1.9/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9-source-release.zip >> >> is the one that allows to build it using maven. In practice, it is a >> copy of the sources from the svn. This artifact is included also in: >> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemyfaces-034/org/apache/myfaces/core/myfaces-core-assembly/2.1.9/myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.zip >> >> Build it is quite simple: unpack and mvn install. >> >> regards, >> >> Leonardo Uribe >> >> 2012/9/6 Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]>: >>> So I'm doing the work to vote for a release -- something I haven't >>> participated in in a very long time. >>> >>> Leonardo's key in KEYS - check >>> .jar.md5 matches - check >>> .jar.asc.md5 matches - check >>> .jar.sha1 matches -check >>> .jar.asc.sha1 matches -check >>> .asc files mat >>> >>> Includes source - check >>> Source builds -- Not seeing any kind of build system or build instructions. >>> >>> Checking our web site only shows how to build from an svn checkout. >>> >>> Did we somehow lose the ability to build from our released source when >>> we switched to maven? >>> Because unless something has changed this is a big deal. >>> >>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what >>> ==================== >>> What Must Every ASF Release Contain? >>> >>> Every ASF release *must* contain a source package, which must be >>> sufficient for a user to build and test the release provided they have >>> access to the appropriate platform and tools. >>> [...] >>> What are the ASF requirements on approving a release? >>> >>> [...] Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed >>> source code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting >>> executable on their own platform, along with also verifying that the >>> package contains the required contents. >>> ==================== >>> >>> We hit this issue in Cayenne a couple years back and had to do some >>> work to fix it. >>> >>> http://markmail.org/thread/njray5dbazwcdcts >>> >>> The natural inclination is to argue about it and try to say it's not >>> required. One can read through lots of threads on that if you really >>> want to satisfy that need. >>> >>> But it all comes down to the fact that our "open source" releases need >>> to be something that someone can modify and build. And right now, >>> that isn't doable. Source control systems come and go. The ASF >>> might disappear next year. Or you might just be some poor guy who, >>> five years from now, has to work on a project I wrote to fix some >>> minor bug and find that the particular branch for Myfaces 2.1.9 >>> accidentally got corrupted. The reasons for why it is done this way >>> are numerous and worthwhile. But even if that doesn't sell you on >>> it, in the end it comes down to being a requirement of a release, >>> whether or not you agree with it. >>> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cayenne-dev/201008.mbox/%[email protected]%3E >>> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cayenne-dev/201008.mbox/%[email protected]%3E >>> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cayenne-dev/201008.mbox/%[email protected]%3E >>> >>> But don't just take my word on it, read through the 123 messages on >>> the legal discuss thread :) >>> >>> http://markmail.org/thread/njray5dbazwcdcts >>> >>> >>> So at least for now, >>> >>> [X] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be released: >>> >>> - Release cannot be built and tested from source.
