Re: [I] Binary artifacts seem to be checked for "lightweight" licence check even if RAT only is used (tooling-trusted-releases)
potiuk commented on issue #454: URL: https://github.com/apache/tooling-trusted-releases/issues/454#issuecomment-3706093941 Yep. Had no time to create it- currently on short holidays in Vienna. Thanks for doing it @dave2wave -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
Re: [I] Binary artifacts seem to be checked for "lightweight" licence check even if RAT only is used (tooling-trusted-releases)
dave2wave commented on issue #454: URL: https://github.com/apache/tooling-trusted-releases/issues/454#issuecomment-3705871470 I think that we need these two new issues. - [ ] Valid NOTICE files are marked invalid. - [ ] Discuss identification of generated source files. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
Re: [I] Binary artifacts seem to be checked for "lightweight" licence check even if RAT only is used (tooling-trusted-releases)
potiuk closed issue #454: Binary artifacts seem to be checked for "lightweight" licence check even if RAT only is used URL: https://github.com/apache/tooling-trusted-releases/issues/454 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
Re: [I] Binary artifacts seem to be checked for "lightweight" licence check even if RAT only is used (tooling-trusted-releases)
potiuk commented on issue #454: URL: https://github.com/apache/tooling-trusted-releases/issues/454#issuecomment-3703802581 Ah . I see - makes sense - let me close that one then. I will open a separate one about those issues we have now with NOTICE and a way to exclude some files from the check (is there already a way ? Our wheel files will **always** have some generated files without licence). -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
Re: [I] Binary artifacts seem to be checked for "lightweight" licence check even if RAT only is used (tooling-trusted-releases)
sbp commented on issue #454: URL: https://github.com/apache/tooling-trusted-releases/issues/454#issuecomment-3703742860 Commit 8d688fe3fb90e1b2ff29665d02dc1d99c9db8871 makes it more clear that the license checker option only applies to source artifacts and that binary artifacts are always checked by the lightweight checker. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
Re: [I] Binary artifacts seem to be checked for "lightweight" licence check even if RAT only is used (tooling-trusted-releases)
potiuk commented on issue #454: URL: https://github.com/apache/tooling-trusted-releases/issues/454#issuecomment-3702954029 Other notice files are good: ``` Apache Airflow Copyright 2016-2025 The Apache Software Foundation This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). ``` -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
Re: [I] Binary artifacts seem to be checked for "lightweight" licence check even if RAT only is used (tooling-trusted-releases)
potiuk commented on issue #454: URL: https://github.com/apache/tooling-trusted-releases/issues/454#issuecomment-3702953574 Interesting why this one is wrong: ``` Apache Airflow Copyright 2016-2025 The Apache Software Foundation This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). === Flask App Builder: - This product contains a modified portion of 'Flask App Builder' developed by Daniel Vaz Gaspar. (https://github.com/dpgaspar/Flask-AppBuilder). * Copyright 2013, Daniel Vaz Gaspar ``` -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
Re: [I] Binary artifacts seem to be checked for "lightweight" licence check even if RAT only is used (tooling-trusted-releases)
dave2wave commented on issue #454: URL: https://github.com/apache/tooling-trusted-releases/issues/454#issuecomment-3702946437 The lightweight check needs some adjustment regarding what it checks. Is this one a checker error> https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2c6f9e04-3107-4607-9d09-b14bb1e7ef80"; /> -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
Re: [I] Binary artifacts seem to be checked for "lightweight" licence check even if RAT only is used (tooling-trusted-releases)
dave2wave commented on issue #454: URL: https://github.com/apache/tooling-trusted-releases/issues/454#issuecomment-3702942593 Changes are in flux around identifying binary and how we will run lightweight checks. The binary artifacts path will be removed soon. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
Re: [I] Binary artifacts seem to be checked for "lightweight" licence check even if RAT only is used (tooling-trusted-releases)
potiuk commented on issue #454: URL: https://github.com/apache/tooling-trusted-releases/issues/454#issuecomment-3702940708 After all checks I also have RAT licence error https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2a5d17f9-9942-41b8-a8ff-2f8cc94c79ca"; /> But this is something we should handle separately. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
