Hi,
Looked at the unzipped directory for source-release that becomes jdo-3.2.1-RC1.
The NOTICE seems a bit off. It refers to the JDO pom with a copyright.
But the NOTICE.txt is fine, except for the Copyright date which should be
2005-2022.
Craig pushed a change to main.
I don't think we need LICENSE since we have LICENSE.txt which is fine.
AI Michael: try to figure out where the LICENSE and NOTICE are coming from.
Perhaps the mvn-notice-plugin?
We added some feature for the Apache Felix bundle plug-in...
I figured out the files LICENSE and NOTICE are generated by the
maven-remote-resources-plugin which is defined in the Apache parent pom.
The plugin definition contains the following comment for the
maven-remote-resources-plugin: <!-- We want to package up license
resources in the JARs produced -->
It refers to org.apache:apache-jar-resource-bundle:1.4 as resource
bundle. If you are interested you find it in your local maven
repository. Go to
~/.m2/repository/org/apache/apache-jar-resource-bundle/1.4 and take a
look at apache-jar-resource-bundle-1.4.jar. The
maven-remote-resources-plugin uses these files as templates when the
plugin is executed.
According to "Assembling LICENSE and NOTICE files" see
https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html the files should be called
LICENSE and NOTICE, so without the .txt suffix.
So I propose to remove the files LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt and use the
files as generated by the maven-remote-resources-plugin. In order to get
a better name into the generated NOTICE file I propose to rename the JDO
root pom from "JDO Root POM" to "Apache Java Data Objects (JDO)". That
means setting the <name> element in the JDO root pom: <name>Apache Java
Data Objects (JDO)</name>
What do you think? If you agree I would check in the change into the
3.2.1 branch.
Regards Michael
