I think we should, so I'll officially request it. I've included the revisions for the necessary changes below. The bulk of these are actually producing and tweaking the stripped versions of the spec files. There was a lot of tweaks to those in order to do things like update the copyright and tweak the stripping script to produce a consistent order so we could diff the content without seeing spurious changes. As those don't touch any code and are fairly uninteresting I've included only the revisions here. They all culminate in the version of the files now present on trunk. The actual code changes are left expanded below and are all quite simple.
--Rafael r1478738 r1478736 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r1478582 | aconway | 2013-05-02 17:47:13 -0400 (Thu, 02 May 2013) | 5 lines QPID-4798: Fix up c++ code generation to use stripped spec files. The stripped specs have no <doc> elements, this was tripping up the code generator. Fixed the generator to process <doc> elements if they are present but to carry on without them if they are not. r1478552 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r1478520 | rgodfrey | 2013-05-02 16:40:00 -0400 (Thu, 02 May 2013) | 1 line QPID-4798 : use stripped BSD licensed versions of the amqp spec files r1478449 r1478444 r1478434 r1478425 r1478400 r1478397 r1478396 r1478393 r1478385 r1478376 r1478374 r1478373 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r1478093 | rhs | 2013-05-01 13:04:31 -0400 (Wed, 01 May 2013) | 1 line QPID-4798: switched python client over to using stripped XML r1478092 r1478041 r1478025 r1478012 On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I was wondering if we are going to include the spec file changes into 0.22? > I think we should but noone seems to have made a move in that direction. > > Within the Java tree there is only a trivial change required, identical to > trunk. I'm not sure if the same is true in the other languages. We should > probably do the change at the same time if we are going to. > > Robbie > > ---------- Original message ---------- > From: Rafael Schloming <[email protected]> > Date: 1 May 2013 18:30 > Subject: Re: License problem with qpid-python > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > > > FYI I've filed the following JIRA to track this: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-4798 > > --Rafael > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Thomas Goirand <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Dear QPID maintainers, > > > > Jonas Smedegaard just sent a bug report on the Debian bug tracker, > > because he believes that the qpid-python package in Debian is non-free: > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=706101 > > > > Indeed, when having a look in the sepcs/* folder, we can see a LICENSE > > file which contains both the Apache-2.0 and AMQP license. Though nearly > > all files in that folder contains only the AMQP license header. So it is > > not clear at all under which license these files are. And if they are > > only licensed under the AMQP license, then they are non-free in the eyes > > of Debian (the AMQP license isn't suitable for Debian). > > > > If this issue isn't solved quickly, then the package will have to be > > removed from Debian. > > > > Also, since Debian Wheezy will be out this week-end, a lightning fast > > answer from you would be really appreciated. Best case would be if we > > could solve this problem before the release. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Thomas Goirand (zigo) > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >
