I think for the most part, I am happy with the jar file changes since beta 2. Currently, my vote is -1, really down to the license / notice files already mentioned. I'll do some work on these tomorrow.
Jon On Friday, April 20, 2012, David Blevins wrote: > > On Apr 19, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Jonathan Gallimore wrote: > > > I'm running a full build from the tag with all the tests and a clean .m2 > > directory at the moment. I'm sure it'll be fine, but I always like to > try a > > build when voting :). Meanwhile, I've been taking a look at the legal > > report. I'll do a bit more on this tomorrow, but I spotted a couple of > > things so far: > > > > The following modules do not have META-INF/LICENSE and META-INF/NOTICE > > files: > > > > openejb-karaf-commands-4.0.0.jar > > openejb-karaf-rebranding-4.0.0.jar > > openejb-provisionning-4.0.0.zip (no LICENSE, but NOTICE is present) > > openejb-ssh-4.0.0.zip > > xbean-finder-shaded-3.10.jar > > We should definitely add LICENSE and NOTICE files to jars. I can take > care of that. > > The openejb-provisionning-4.0.0.zip simply has a typo in the LICENSE file. > Easy fix as well. > > 41134 04-17-2012 20:45 openejb-provisionning-4.0.0/LICENCE > 2490 04-17-2012 20:45 openejb-provisionning-4.0.0/NOTICE > > I hadn't noticed the openejb-ssh-4.0.0.zip. I don't have the time to > create license and notice files for those. The license/notice files for > the provisioning zip took 3 hours -- you can't generate these things or > trust the contents of the jars in the zip. > > So that one will likely be deleted if left to me to fix. > > > I really like the legal report, but I could probably use a reminder of > > exactly how to read it... specifically around declared and undeclared > > licenses/notices. Using the TomEE webprofile zip as an example ( > > > http://people.apache.org/~dblevins/staging-068/legal/org.apache.openejb.apache-tomee.1.0.0.apache-tomee-1.0.0-webprofile.zip.licenses.html > ), > > it looks like there are both declared and undeclared licenses. I would > read > > an undeclared license as one that is present in one of the jars included > in > > the zip, but has been missed in the main zips LICENSES file. Is that > > correct? If so, ideally we should have no undeclared licenses? > > That's the general idea, however the tool is very crude, so at best it's > an indication of what things a human might want to investigate. > > Here's a list of the changes between beta-2 and the proposed final > binaries. Assuming you trust your review of beta-2, you only need to focus > on ensuring the changed libraries are accurately represented in the > respective NOTICE and LICENSE files. > > apache-tomee 1.0.0 webprofile > > D commons-beanutils-1.8.3.jar > D log4j-1.2.16.jar > D openejb-javaagent-4.0.0-beta-2.jar > D openjpa-2.1.1.jar > D slf4j-log4j12-1.6.1.jar > A commons-beanutils-core-1.8.3.jar > A commons-lang3-3.1.jar > A gson-2.1.jar > A jaxb-api.jar > A jaxb-impl.jar > A openjpa-asm-shaded-2.2.0.jar > A slf4j-jdk14-1.6.4.jar > A tomee-myfaces-4.0.0.jar > > change: +2.12 MB > total : 26.36 MB > > > apache-tomee 1.0.0 plus > > D commons-beanutils-1.8.3.jar > D log4j-1.2.16.jar > D openejb-javaagent-4.0.0-beta-2.jar > D openjpa-2.1.1.jar > D slf4j-log4j12-1.6.1.jar > A commons-beanutils-core-1.8.3.jar > A commons-lang3-3.1.jar > A gson-2.1.jar > A jaxb-api.jar > A jaxb-impl.jar > A openjpa-asm-shaded-2.2.0.jar > A slf4j-jdk14-1.6.4.jar > A tomee-myfaces-4.0.0.jar > > change: +2.23 MB > total : 44.01 MB > > > openejb-standalone 4.0.0 > > D commons-beanutils-1.8.3.jar > D log4j-1.2.16.jar > D openjpa-2.1.1.jar > D slf4j-log4j12-1.6.1.jar > A commons-beanutils-core-1.8.3.jar > A commons-lang3-3.1.jar > A jaxb-impl-2.2.5.jar > A openjpa-asm-shaded-2.2.0.jar > A slf4j-jdk14-1.6.4.jar > > change: +1.41 MB > total : 33.15 MB > >
