On 2012-02-17 20:50, Jakub Adam wrote: > Hi Niels, > Hi,
>> I noticed some files licensed under Apache 2 (and possible also 1). See >> the "license" attachment. > > From your listing only CommonsHttpSender.java and XML11Char.java are actual > code under Apache license. I added them to a separate section in > d/copyright > with their correct license. > Thanks, :) >> [...] >> I had a look in one of them[1] and it suggests that besides EPL-1, >> Apache 1 and 2, we may find "Common Public License Version 1.0", "Metro >> Link Public License 1.00" and "Mozilla Public License Version 1.1" in >> the source. Of course, it could be the result of copy-waste from core >> eclipse bundles (as eclipse itself contains some of those licenses). > > I searched for all of the mentioned licenses but found no occurrence of > any other than EPL and Apache-2.0. Surely that list was copied from other > project. > :) >> Besides those licensed in "license", I also noticed a file called >> "junit.jar" (in one of the test bundles). I suspect it is an embedded >> copy of junit4, but it has a BSD license file refering to >> "hamcrest.org" ... >> >> >> I could recommend using "suspicious-source" for finding questionable >> file types in the source package. Though for eclipse-mylyn, its result >> apparently consists of 70% "empty files"[2].>.> >> Nevertheless, eclipse upstreams tends to embed one or more 3rd party >> Java library jar files (sometimes cleverly disguised as .zip files). >> Othertimes they just use them to store various xml files... > > To the files in question: > > * ./org.eclipse.mylyn.tasks/org.eclipse.mylyn.tasks.tests/testdata/*.zip > these are zip archives containing test data in xml. I think they can be > left alone. > I believe it is ok. > * > ./org.eclipse.mylyn.builds/.../org.eclipse.mylyn.builds.sample.ant/junit.jar > > binary junit4 jar, I will remove this. > Thanks > * > ./org.eclipse.mylyn.commons/org.eclipse.mylyn.discovery.tests/testdata/update/.../*.jar > > These jars are in fact zip archives with xml files. As they don't > contain any > binaries which would have to be recompiled from source, I'd like to > keep them > in place. > I believe this is ok as well. > * > ./org.eclipse.mylyn.context/org.eclipse.mylyn.context.tests/testdata/projects/project*.zip > > Two zipped eclipse projects used as test data. They contain both > dummy java sources and their > compiled *.class files. Should I remove the binaries or can I keep > the archives intact as the > source codes are available? > > (I will wait for your feedback before changing the upstream tarball.) > I suspect it would be easier / faster to remove the class files and recompile them than clarify to the ftp-masters why there are precompiled sources hidden in a jar file. To be honest, I had hoped for a "drive-by" review on this one. I know we in src:eclipse remove dummy classes / compiled interfaces only to rebuild them at runtime (but those weren't "tests"). If it FTBFS after you start recompiling it (due to test failures), let me know. >> Given that eclipse-mylyn appears to have migrated to git[3], I suspect >> that debian/get-orig-source is broken. > > Updated the script to download files from new location. > Thanks. :) >> >> During build, I noticed two "Java Model Exception: Java Model Status >> [org.eclipse.mylyn.builds.core does not exist]" exceptions (with >> stack-traces). It might be a non-issue, but I wanted to make sure you >> were aware of it. > > I know about the exceptions, but I checked the generated code and it > seems to be correct, also > the compiled plugin works as expected. > > Regards > > Jakub > > Thought as much. As I recall we have a similar problem in src:eclipse... :P ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f474a07.7050...@thykier.net
