On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:24 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[email protected]> wrote: > 2011/7/10 Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]>: >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>> The LICENSE and NOTICE stuff in the source and binary releases isn't >>> great but probably isn't harmful. Needs to be addressed before the >>> next release. >> >> Now is perhaps a good time to ask ourselves whether we should continue >> to ship the binary. >> >> Opinions? > > I think the binary is useful. > 1) the bin is the only package including all of the jars we produce. > 2) the bin was expected to work via command line using java -jar > apache-jspf-resolver-0.9.9.jar and work like the spfquery command line > tool (I just tested it works for 0.9.9 if you move lib/* to the main > folder). > > #2 is my main reason to keep releasing the binary.
ok > What's the problem with its LICENSE/NOTICE? (IIRC we agreed that was > OK to use a single LICENSE/NOTICE tuple in this case because even the > source distro has non-ALv2 contents to be declared and providing > multiple LICENSE/NOTICE is more caothic than having one including > informations about artifacts that *may* be included in each released > package). Similar problems to the James application... Robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
