Thanks. This is fairly useful. Will rework and put up a new tar ball accommodating these comments.
Regards Srikanth Sundarrajan ---------------------------------------- > Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 11:45:28 +0100 > Subject: Re: Review of binary tar ball for Apache Falcon (incubating) 0.3 RC4 > From: seb...@gmail.com > To: general@incubator.apache.org > > On 20 August 2013 06:19, Srikanth Sundarrajan <srik...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> We had recently called for a vote on Apache Falcon 0.3 RC4 (source tar ball) >> and the result has been announced (http://s.apache.org/wLO). We intend to >> also make a binary tar ball available for user convenience. We would really >> appreciate if someone on this mailing list could take a few minutes to >> review it for compliance. >> >> The tar ball and signatures are available at >> http://people.apache.org/~sriksun/falcon-release/0.3-rc4-bin/ > > The NOTICE file starts with: > ========================================================================= > == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of == > == the Apache License, Version 2.0, == > == in this case for the Apache Falcon distribution. == > ========================================================================= > > This is wrong; it should be removed. > The first two lines should be: > > Apache Falcon (incubating) > Copyright 2011-2013 The Apache Software Foundation > > i.e. no blank lines between them. > > The rest of the NOTICE file is for *required* notices. > And they must only be required notices for software that is actually included. > > It's not obvious that *any* of the attributions are actually required. > Remember that the NOTICE file must only contain required attributions; see: > > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice > > == > > It's quite difficult to find the licences for the individual jars in > LICENSE.txt > For example, at first I thought there was no license for > activation-1.1.jar, but then I discovered that this is covered by the > "javax" section. > It would be a lot easier to follow (and manage as dependencies > changed) if the jar names were itemised in the LICENSE.txt file, along > with pointers to their licenses. > It's not necessary for the licenses to be included in LICENSE.txt, > they can be in separate files so long as LICENSE.txt references them > clearly. > > I could not find a license reference for: > annotations-1.3.2.jar > aopalliance-1.0.jar > > and several others don't appear to have licenses. > > == > > The binary file is much larger than it need be; several jars are > included twice in the top level jar in different directories. > And there are two different versions of some of the jars. > Furthermore, just about all the jars are also included in the falcon.war file. > That does not have any identical duplicates, because the jars are all > in a single directory. > However it does have two versions of servlet-api and stax-api, as well as > commons-logging-1.1.jar/commons-logging-api-1.1.jar > commons-beanutils-1.8.3.jar > commons-beanutils-core-1.8.0.jar > > That seems unnecessary; each jar could be included once and copied > into any required additional locations as part of the installation. > Mixing jar versions in the same directory is also likely to result in > some classpath problems. > >> Regards >> Srikanth Sundarrajan >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
