Hi,
I found some other things that ought to be cleared up before 3.5-
FINAL. I guess that makes me a 0 vote.
* The copyright year in the NOTICE file should be updated
* The NOTICE should list the required copyright attributions, not
refer to licensing of included components
* Instead of just URL pointers, it would be good to include full
copies of the relevant external licenses either in the LICENSE file or
in other files referenced by LICENSE
Jukka would you provide an example of a proper NOTICE file. I think we
can make it proper. It would also help to have the proper
considerations. For example, do we need to mention that data file that
we had re-licensed?
The RAT report for the release is also pretty long, but most of the
flagged files seem to be generated documentation or other similar
files that require no action.
What's a RAT report?
(1) I did notice that as I built this release under US-ASCII settings
(Solaris 8) that there were literal string issues - almost all in
comments - particularly in our French sourced OOXML contribution.
Except for this:
[javac] /export/home/apachecat/poi-3.5-beta5/src/testcases/org/
apache/poi/hssf/usermodel/TestHSSFDataFormatter.java:81: warning:
unmappable character for encoding ASCII
[javac] "[$???-809]#,##0.00",
[javac] ^
We ought to have some instructions about setting the character set and
why.
(2) Also, our distros are gnu tar - I guess that this is understood.
[tar] Entry: poi-3.5-beta5/docs/apidocs/org/apache/poi/contrib/
poibrowser/class-use/DocumentDescriptorRenderer.html longer than 100
characters.
[tar] Resulting tar file can only be processed successfully by
GNU compatible tar commands
(3) A couple of the build files are missing the apache license notice
- forrest.properties and maven/mvn-sig.sh
(4) The ruby contribution does not look like it is a complete package
- also someone contributed a patch for it that was also incomplete. https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42756
I would say that unless we get someone who wants this and can confirm
it - that we should pull it from 3.5-FINAL.
(5) I did find and grep on the source tree.
find . -name .svn -prune -o -exec grep -l LICENSE {} \; > file-list
find . -name .svn -prune -o -print \; > file-list2
diff file-list file-list2
There are a handful of source files that are missing the Apache
LICENSE notice:
./java/org/apache/poi/hssf/record/formula/eval/RefEvalBase.java
./scratchpad/src/org/apache/poi/hwpf/model/EscherRecordHolder.java
./scratchpad/src/org/apache/poi/hslf/model/Comment.java
./scratchpad/src/org/apache/poi/hslf/model/MovieShape.java
./scratchpad/src/org/apache/poi/hslf/model/ActiveXShape.java
./testcases/org/apache/poi/poifs/property/AllPOIFSPropertyTests.java
./testcases/org/apache/poi/hssf/usermodel/TestLinkTable.java
./ooxml/java/org/apache/poi/xssf/usermodel/XSSFActiveXData.java
./ooxml/java/org/apache/poi/xssf/util/Charset.java
./ooxml/java/org/apache/poi/xssf/util/CTFontWrapper.java
./ooxml/testcases/org/apache/poi/xssf/usermodel/TestXSSFFont.java
Some of these are empty files.
The best check would be to look for a proper match of the whole
LICENSE header in the source files, and also a look for other licenses
in a source file.
Regards,
Dave
On Feb 19, 2009, at 6:53 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Yegor Kozlov <[email protected]> wrote:
The revision number of the release is r742327 and tagged as
REL_3_5_BETA5.
The release artifacts can be downloaded from:
http://people.apache.org/~yegor/REL_3_5_BETA5
+0 (non-binding)
I tried it out with Apache Tika and everything seems to work fine.
I didn't yet have time to do the more thorough license review I
promised earlier, but here are a few early notes:
* The copyright year in the NOTICE file should be updated
* The NOTICE should list the required copyright attributions, not
refer to licensing of included components
* Instead of just URL pointers, it would be good to include full
copies of the relevant external licenses either in the LICENSE file or
in other files referenced by LICENSE
The RAT report for the release is also pretty long, but most of the
flagged files seem to be generated documentation or other similar
files that require no action.
I'll try to look deeper into this over the weekend and try to provide
relevant patches. But for now I didn't spot any major blockers for the
release.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
