Hi Otto, I think this is the standard we have been using in all other projects that use the Maven-Wrapper. Therefore I would assume that this is ok this way.
I just checked in IoTDB and there they have it the same way. Juding from the fact, that they just left the incubator, I would have expected Justin to complain if this wasn't correct. I do remember discussions about this cause initially using the Maven-Wrapper was a taboo for Apache projects, till I submitted a PR to it that was a source-only version. We then added it sort of everywhere and had some discussions about what to attribute and where to put it. Chris -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Otto Fowler <[email protected]> Gesendet: Montag, 14. Dezember 2020 15:07 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache PLC4X 1.4.0 RC2 shasum works for me. I think I got gshasum512 from the site. Ok, I have an possible issue: The License has the information about mvnw stuff’s inclusion. As far as I understand it, this belongs in the NOTICE, not the LICENSE. > On Dec 14, 2020, at 01:50, Lukas Ott <[email protected]> wrote: > > This happens in my terminal: > $gpg --verify > apache-plc4x-code-generation-1.4.0-source-release.zip.asc > apache-plc4x-code-generation-1.4.0-source-release.zip > gpg: Signatur vom So 13 Dez 2020 17:39:46 CET > gpg: mittels RSA-Schlüssel > B6AC3BF1A0F08554144EEC56027975C99CBA22C7 > gpg: Korrekte Signatur von "Lukas Ott <[email protected]>" [ultimativ] > $ shasum -a512 apache-plc4x-code-generation-1.4.0-source-release.zip > 7a906395077f34cbb6c0d66241d17784c9ad7077d8533553fee7cd2d2cae0e88779339 > 69fe3424f29f32af2094af952067ca3887adf178fe08e5f012f77a412f > apache-plc4x-code-generation-1.4.0-source-release.zip > > Am Mo., 14. Dez. 2020 um 04:26 Uhr schrieb Otto Fowler < > [email protected]>: > >> gsha512sum -c >> apache-plc4x-code-generation-1.4.0-source-release.zip.sha512 >> gsha512sum: apache-plc4x-code-generation-1.4.0-source-release.zip.sha512: >> no properly formatted SHA512 checksum lines found >> >> anyone seeing this? >> >>> On Dec 13, 2020, at 10:53, Lukas Ott <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> This is the discussion thread for the corresponding VOTE thread. >>> >>> Please keep discussions in this thread to simplify the counting of >> votes. >>> >>> If you have to vote -1 please mention a brief description on why >>> and then take the details to this thread. >> >>
