Yes, I'm sorry, I should never have even considered believing that.
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> wrote: > I know I personally looked at all the licenses and that we don't have GPL. > That one in particular would have had to get past all the Hadoop committers > too. > > -Grant > > On Dec 30, 2009, at 6:38 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > >> Oh, fooie, never mind, given the license de-confusion over on the user list. >> >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> The current situation, in which kfs is listed as a dependency in core, >>> is not ideal. >>> >>> Can you commit a version of the core pom that removes it? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Drew Farris <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> To follow up here -- in 0.2 there were few external dependencies which were >>>> managed/deployed internally within the mahout project because they were not >>>> available in any other maven repository. These were given a groupId under >>>> the mahout triple to avoid conflicts with the actual library should it ever >>>> be officially deployed. >>>> >>>> There are a bunch of libraries that hadoop depends on that are really >>>> unnecessary -- things like kosmofs (kfs?) and jets3t provide filesystem >>>> layer alternatives to hdfs. These were included directly in the 0.2 >>>> release, >>>> and had been transitively included in the 0.3 release via the current >>>> hadoop >>>> 0.20.2 SNAPSHOT dependency -- these had to be excluded explicitly in the >>>> parent pom (maven/pom.xml) currently in HEAD. >>>> >>>> On Dec 30, 2009 4:18 PM, "Drew Farris" <[email protected]> wrote >>>> >>>> I do not believe that kfs is needed to build or run mahout. It is an >>>> optional runtime dependency brought in by hadoop. There are a couple other >>>> libraries like this that are excluded in the dependency management section >>>> of the parent pom in HEAD for the hadoop depedency. >>>> >>>>>> On Dec 30, 2009 3:01 PM, "Benson Margulies" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: > > What's the scoop... >>>> >>> > >
