On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Oliver Lietz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thursday 25 August 2016 22:11:00 Karl Pauls wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Radu Cotescu <[email protected]> wrote: > > hi, > > > I think I finally fixed this in https://svn.apache.org/r1757708. I've > run a > > > > > test with the SNAPSHOT version and everything works as expected. > > > > Looks good! > > shouldn't we have a global setting/configuration in parent which is valid > for > all modules? Fixing include of LICENSE and NOTICE in one module sounds > awkward. > Well, you cant't have only one place as each module needs to be able to (if needed) declare what other licensed code it contains. You can only do that for bundles that don't have anything to declare which actually (at least in theory) we have - that is the point of the appended-resources. You over-right LICENSE and NOTICE on a case by case basis when it is needed (i.e., the module contains external/differently licensed code). At least, appended-resources is what we probably should be using for that - however, as far as I can see a lot of bundles do follow a different approach (probably for historic reasons) namely, they duplicate the LICENSE and NOTICE files in the root of the bundle svn dir and inside src/main/resources/META-INF. In the case of the css bundle, it was probably forgotten to do the duplication. Obviously, that is probably not the best way to do it - hence, if you are talking about clean-up I would recommend to rework all bundles to have their LICENSE and NOTICE appended by default and override it on a case by case basis via appended-resources if needed. I don't think we are talking about a lot of work in that regard so if others think it is worthwhile we might want to create a JIRA issues to list what bundles needed to be changed and just do it in one go (If others agree, I'd be willing to look into it)... regards, Karl > > Regards, > O. > > > regards, > > > > Karl > > -- Karl Pauls [email protected]
