Another overall change I forgot to include in the summarization: the OSGi builds were changed to include the Jars, rather than unpacking them over each other, which was overlaying same-named things (like LICENSE / NOTICE, etc.).
-Marshall On 8/9/2011 10:37 AM, Marshall Schor wrote: > The only thing I'd like to see checked by someone who know how, is that the > OSGi > packaging is OK. > > The main other fixes are detailed in the commit logs, but in summary: > > The binary builds (single-project assembly, aggregate-addons-assembly, PEAR > files, OSGi packagings) are selected per project by using the marker-file* > technique. A common build is done, and those results are copied with some > additions / deletions for the various binary packagings. For instance, the > OSGi > does not include the documentation, whereas the PEAR packaging does. > > The LICENSE / NOTICE / README files are now shared where feasible, so all the > various build targets get the proper version and there's just one place to > update when these change. > > I made a pass thru the projects to locate special license/notice stanzas that > come from other Jars being distributed with each addon , and fixed that > addon's > version of these files. I also then aggregated all of these into the overall > uima-addons project as the composite License/Notice/Readme files. Tika > Annotator was marked for cyrpto software (due to including Tika parts, which > in > turn are marked that way), and the crypto exports page in Apache was updated. > > The source-release build was changed to use the common Apache approach. This > makes it more likely that the SVN source checkout and the source-release zip > match. > > Please post the results of testing the OSGi packaging :-) and then I'll spin a > release candidate. > > -Marshall > >
