On 5/13/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
robert burrell donkin ha scritto:
> On 5/11/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I just deployed snapshot builds for mime4j here:
>> http://people.apache.org/~bago/mime4j/
>
> it's best to prefix the jar names with 'apache' (eg
> apache-james-mime4j-0.3-SNAPSHOT-bin.tar.gz) since this allows
> trademark law to be used against anyone passing off bad jars
I see your point, but shouldn't this be discussed with the whole Maven2
community?
not really: there are quite a lot of areas where work is needed before
maven will produce compliant releases. AIUI the maven team are have
been working hard on a lot of these areas and it's a lot better now.
None of the jars distributed by ASF via Maven repositories (*MANY*
products) have the apache name in the jar !?! (well maybe a couple of
them have this prefix.. but a couple vs thousands)
i've taken a quick look and the maven 2 repository is much worse than
the old one used to be
jar names should include 'apache'. unless jar names include 'apache'
we have no ability to ensure that others do not produce jars with the
same name. probably need to go and remind them that they still have it
very wrong.
Should we change every of our artifactId to include "apache-" ? We have
org.apache.james in the groupId for every artifact, but we don't have
"apache" for the artifactId (as I said before I'm not aware of any other
project using "apache" in the artifactId apart the
apache-jar-resource-bundle-1.2.jar I just added to the local stage folder).
every artifact id should include 'apache'
> taken a quick look and the basics seem ok (haven't run RAT)
>
> mvn doesn't work for me when running against trunk
maven 2.0.6 > mvn -U -Plocal package
What's the error you get?
if it was the missing "apache-jar-resource-bundle" artifact I just added
it to the local repository (having it in the james-project local
repository hidden this problem to me).
Please tell me if this fixed your issue.
mvn -U -Plocal package works for me now
i recommend adding a top level BUILDING.txt file giving building instructions
<snip>
> the root source lacks NOTICE and LICENSE
Do you mean the source tree in svn or the source package?
best to have them at the top of the source tree in svn
I believe the
source package containes the NOTICE/LICENSE.
About the svn source tree I posted a question on legal-discuss but I
received no answer about this:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200705.mbox/<[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
it's not a legal question but an infra question
all apache releases require LICENSE and NOTICE. source releases should
be the primary form of release for apache projects. source releases
are formed by svn export. if the source lacks top level LICENSE and
NOTICE files then it's hard to create compliant releases.
If they will reply that NOTICE and LICENSE are needed also in the svn
source tree then we should coordinate the Maven2 guys to avoid pushing
the use of the
"apache-jar-resource-bundler"+"maven-remote-resources-plugin"
combination because this leads to no LICENSE/NOTICE in the source tree.
seems wrong to me that maven actively conflicts with the use of an svn
export to create a proper source release
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
