And here's what I did to come up with this list: mvn apache-rat:check -Drat.numUnapprovedLicenses=9999
ls -1 */target/rat.txt api/target/rat.txt bundle/target/rat.txt implee6/target/rat.txt impl/target/rat.txt parent/target/rat.txt shaded-impl/target/rat.txt shared-public/target/rat.txt shared/target/rat.txt and then went through that list of files by hand. On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]> wrote: > Due to my lack of maven experience, it's taken me awhile to figure out > how to configure apache rat so that I could get past the two license > exceptions in the api project. > > Here's the full list of unapproved files in the rest of the project: > > implee6/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/javax.servlet.ServletContainerInitializer > > impl/src/test/java/org/apache/myfaces/config/annotation/ClassByteCodeAnnotationFilterTest.java > impl/src/test/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.myfaces.config.annotation.LifecycleProvider > impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/composite/testSimpleThisResourceReference.xhtml > impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/composite/javax.faces/jsf.js > impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/tag/jsf/html/javax.faces/jsf.js > impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/view/facelets/updateheadres/resources/javax.faces/jsf.js > impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/lifecycle/view2.xhtml > impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/lifecycle/view1.jsp > impl/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/context/nestedScriptCDATA.xml > impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/xdoc-component.vmimpl/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/glassfish-LICENSE.txt > impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/facelets-LICENSE.txt > impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.apache.myfaces.config.annotation.LifecycleProvider > impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/xdoc-tag.vm > impl/src/main/resources/META-INF/xdoc-web-config.vm > impl/src/main/resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/javaee_5.xsd > impl/src/main/resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/javaee_web_services_client_1_2.xsd > impl/src/main/conf/META-INF/.standard-faces-config-base.xml.jsfdia > > shared-public/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view2.xhtml > shared-public/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view1.jsp > > shared/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view2.xhtml > shared/src/test/resources/org/apache/myfaces/shared/application/view1.jsp > > > Here is what needed to be added to the api/om.xml file in order to > skip the two files. From what I can tell, we probably should write > license rules for these files rather than exclude them, but that's not > a show-stopper. > > <plugin> > <groupId>org.apache.rat</groupId> > <artifactId>apache-rat-plugin</artifactId> > <configuration> > <excludes> > > <exclude>src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/dojo-LICENSE.TXT</exclude> > > <exclude>src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/facelets-LICENSE.txt</exclude> > </excludes> > </configuration> > </plugin> > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi >> >> I have updated the artifacts, so we can continue the vote. Please put >> the vote on the mail with subject: >> >> [VOTE] release of Apache MyFaces 2.1.9 >> [VOTE] release of Apache MyFaces 2.0.15 >> >> regards, >> >> Leonardo Uribe >> >> 2012/9/11 Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]>: >>> Hi >>> >>> It seems that one is the only artifact that does not have the update. >>> All other source files installed in nexus repository are ok. Maybe it >>> was because the assembly files were compiled before the final >>> sources-release.zip file, so the old one was used. >>> >>> I'll rebuild everything everything again and send another vote mail. >>> Thanks for notice it. >>> >>> regards, >>> >>> Leonardo >>> >>> 2012/9/11 Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]>: >>>> So I finally thought to look at the dates of the files inside of the >>>> the Sep 10th myfaces-core-module-2.1.9-source-release.zip file. >>>> They are all from >>>> Sep 4th, so the problem does appear to be that this piece wasn't >>>> rebuilt in your last release. This is probably why the license files >>>> are still missing. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Leonardo, >>>>> >>>>> Rat is still complaining about the same 7 licensing issues. >>>>> >>>>> However, only certain instances of these files appear to be missing >>>>> licenses. >>>>> >>>>> myfaces-core-2.1.9-src> find . -name _ExtLang.js -exec ls -1 {} \; >>>>> >>>>> .This one has the license header. It comes from >>>>> myfaces-api-2.1.9-sources.jar inside of >>>>> myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.tar.gz >>>>> >>>>> exists -- >>>>> ./src/META-INF/internal-resources/org.apache.myfaces.core.impl.util/_ExtLang.js >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The following two are identical. The first one is the one rat flags >>>>> as needing a header. I guess that's because it's the "source" >>>>> version of all the rest of them. It comes from >>>>> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9-source-release.zip inside of >>>>> myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.tar.gz. Maybe this file also needs >>>>> to be fixed in svn? I was not able to determine where this file comes >>>>> from in SVN. You had said that module was essentially a snapshot of >>>>> SVN. Maybe this snapshot did not get updated because we reused the >>>>> version number? >>>>> >>>>> missing -- >>>>> ./src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js >>>>> >>>>> missing -- >>>>> ./src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/target/classes/META-INF/internal-resources/org.apache.myfaces.core.impl.util/_ExtLang.js >>>>> >>>>> [........ The rest of this email can likely be ignored....] >>>>> >>>>> The following two are the compressed-down versions with no extra >>>>> whitespace or comments, which is what you would expect: >>>>> >>>>> missing -- >>>>> ./src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/target/classes/META-INF/internal-resources/javax.faces/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js >>>>> >>>>> missing -- >>>>> ./src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/target/classes/META-INF/resources/myfaces/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have double and triple-checked to insure that I have a new >>>>> myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.tar.gz download, and all of the files >>>>> inside it were built on Sep 10, 8-to-10pm EST, which is right before >>>>> the email you sent out. >>>>> >>>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 mkienenb users 8119569 Sep 10 21:31 >>>>> myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.tar.gz >>>>> -rw-r--r-- 1 mkienenb users 8119322 Sep 10 21:30 >>>>> myfaces-core-assembly-2.1.9-src.zip >>>>> >>>>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 mkienenb users 900906 Sep 10 20:24 >>>>> myfaces-api-2.1.9-sources.jar >>>>> drwxrwxr-x 12 mkienenb users 4096 Sep 11 21:50 >>>>> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9 >>>>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 mkienenb users 5863230 Sep 10 20:24 >>>>> myfaces-core-module-2.1.9-source-release.zip >>>>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 mkienenb users 1809659 Sep 10 20:24 >>>>> myfaces-impl-2.1.9-sources.jar >>>>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 mkienenb users 423440 Sep 10 20:24 >>>>> myfaces-impl-shared-2.1.9-sources.jar >>>>> \ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unapproved licenses: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/core/_EvalHandlers.js >>>>> >>>>> /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/core/_RuntimeQuirks.js >>>>> >>>>> /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/xhrCore/engine/BaseRequest.js >>>>> >>>>> /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_DomExperimental.js >>>>> >>>>> /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/javascript/META-INF/resources/myfaces/_impl/_util/_ExtLang.js >>>>> >>>>> /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/dojo-LICENSE.TXT >>>>> >>>>> /home/mkienenb/temp/myfaces/people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces219binsrc/sources/myfaces-core-2.1.9-src/src/myfaces-core-module-2.1.9/api/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/facelets-LICENSE.txt >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> I have fixed the files with missing licenses, included a fix for >>>>>> MYFACES-3605, so I'll send another vote over the new artifacts soon. >>>>>> >>>>>> regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Leonardo Uribe >>>>>> >>>>>> 2012/9/7 Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2012/9/7 Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>> [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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems to be related to some refactoring into our code base. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Leonardo Uribe >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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.
