On Oct 25, 2012, at 9:08 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 25/10/2012, at 5:11 AM, Chip Childers <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > >> Yes, the jars referenced in the legal docs are pulled in by the >> packaging process. The expectation was that the material would be >> brought into any packaging (including the non-asf, but community >> provided, deb/rpm's). When looking for examples from other ASF >> projects, IIRC I saw both approaches (I'll have to dig a bit to find >> the examples that I was looking at). At one point, I had a "*_BINARY" >> version of both files and the standard files for the source itself, >> but I then decided to simplify into a single set that would work for >> both situations. >> >> So I guess the question is this: is this an acceptable approach or not? > > I don't see a problem with this - someone building the source is going to > have to accept the licenses of those non-optional dependencies too since > they'll get dragged down automatically. Perhaps the files could have a > separator indicating the following apply only to binaries built from the > sources in future releases? >
Yep. I agree with this. Nothing to hold up this release, but a bit of room for improvement for the next release. :-) Anyway, other than the above, everything looks fine to me. So here is my +1. -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
