Re: maven: appended-resources/licenses

Hi Dale, the others were referenced in the DEPENDENCIES file. As far as I know we only need to add stuff to NOTICE and LICENSE if the license and notice versions of the included libs require us to do that. So only for those did I add something. For the rest it should be sufficient to mention

maven: d3.legend.js mods

Hi Chris, I picked up the d3.legend.js refactoring (7d8a69f ) and it causes this error in Eclipse: Plugin execution not covered by lifecycle configuration: com.googlecode.maven-download-plugin:download-maven-plugin:1.2.1:wget

Re: maven: appended-resources/licenses

The licensing stuff was a huge pain that I had to deal with last year. I make no claim to being an expert now :-) A bundle’s LICENSE and NOTICE can only contain information relevant to content present in the bundle. i.e., there must not be any information related to external dependencies

maven: appended-resources/licenses

Hi Chris, Why does appended-resources/licenses contains more than the licenses than those referenced by META-INF/LICENSE files? I see just MIT, BSD 3-Clause and BSD 2.Clause referenced from the LICENSE files. Why are these present: apache-license-version-2.0.txt (will be necessary if gson

Re: maven: couple of console pom questions

Well I agree the “generate-test-resources” isn’t quite ideal … I am just running a build with “generate-resources” ... The tomcat plugin doesn’t have any effect on the build itself as there is no “execution” defined in the plugin definition. What it does is it allowes a user to simply run “mvn

Re: maven: appended-resources/licenses

HI, > A bundle’s LICENSE and NOTICE can only contain information relevant to > content present in the bundle. Yep. > I thought info for all bundled content (regardless of license type) must be > included. No - there’s no need to list ALv2 licensed bits for instance. > I believe NOTICE must

Re: maven: war LICENSE file

Hi Dale, So, I completely removed the usage of the license-maven-plugin and hereby also removed all of these licenses.xml files. Thinking about what I was planning on using it for, seemed a little over the top for just downloading 5 text files. So, I decided to check-in these license texts

Re: maven: war LICENSE file

Sounds good. The dynamic download was cool but having more places with duplicated/manually sync’d info was a bit ugly :-) I’ll pull and check it out! — Dale > On Oct 3, 2017, at 7:44 AM, Christofer Dutz wrote: > > Hi Dale, > > So, I completely removed the usage of

maven: supplemental-model.xml

Hi Chris, I was trying to educate myself more about supplemental-model.xml and our need for it. I may have missed something but it didn’t look to me like there was any default generated DEPENDENCY file info which was critical or at least very important to “override/fix”. Do you disagree? Did

maven: couple of console pom questions

Hi Chris, I just pushed some changes to the poms, etc for "maintenance doc” There were two other things I noticed and didn’t understand: console/server/pom.xml - Is the “generate-test-resources” phase appropriate for copying in the war? Seems odd being tied to “test” related processing.