Hi, Am 15.02.2014 22:51, schrieb Marshall Schor: > Verified signatures > verify signatures / md5 / sha1 in repository - ruta core -OK. (Got Martin's > key > from mit pgp server) > verify signatures for source-release > > The verification says Martin's key is not part of a trust ring - I would > recommend cross-signing your key by those physically near you :-)
Yes, we already talked about that :-) > Checked issues fixed - looks ok > > Did a build from sources - OK > > compared sources / svn tag - OK > > I installed the ruta plugins into a fresh 4.3.1 Eclipse - OK. I did this > trick: I first "added" the main UIMA eclipse update site > (http://www.apache.org/dist/uima/eclipse-update-site), but I didn't install > anything. Then I put in the RUTA site, and left the box checked to have > install > contact all the sites when looking for other artifacts; the install process > then > contacted the main UIMA site for the plugins it needed - worked like a charm > :-) > > I noticed that some but not all of the internal projects within the examples > folder (example-project, extensions-project, TextRulerExample) have their own > license/notice - which can be a maintenance issue - for example, these have a > 2013 > end date in the Notice part. Normally, the License/Notice files are put at > the > top level of a distribution; I'm not sure why they're here. I will create an issue for the notice/license problems you found. The projects are Ruta projects and are not built with maven. They can be checked out from the scm, and if build, there will be no notice/license file otherwise. > The NOTICE file in many places has duplicate info for creative commons that's > also part of license file. Normally any information that's already in the > License file should not be also duplicated in the Notices file. The Notices > file is for things which are not part of the license terms, but need to be > present (such as copyrights). See > > https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple > > where it says, in part: > However, elements such as the copyright notifications embedded within BSD > and MIT licenses need not be duplicated in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave > those > notices in their original locations. Is it possible that the best practice has changed somehow? I am quite sure that I had to add the notice because of the license. Peter
