Some of the MD5s don't work for me: BAD MD5 commons-email-1.1-RC2.jar Expect: fb02f6aff49332705084b662a5d8d945 Found: a2d70201e44041f9d9b3d865c615e35f
BAD MD5 commons-email-1.1-RC2-bin.tar.gz Expect: f7d933426b68e184047405b52e9bfa0c Found: 770a8da798eb94137e24e03da2904a66 BAD MD5 commons-email-1.1-RC2-bin.zip Expect: 21fd56446a77476370d2b0c1bc87b241 Found: 1a1b4e432d1ec67af99a66576f53db7e S/// On 24/09/2007, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > New source and javadoc jars have been uploaded, tag has been reapplied, > and > signatures rechecked. Votes again welcome :) > > On 9/24/07, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Just wanted to make sure. > > > > I will update the RC sources.jar and javadoc.jar with versions that put > > the LICENSE/NOTICE in META-INF. I'll check in the POM and retag as RC2, > > leaving the current RC2 artifacts on people.a.o in place as there are no > > code changes. Is everybody okay with that plan? > > > > On 9/24/07, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > That settles it for me. Do we need to put LICENSE/NOTICE in META-INF > in > > > source and javadoc or is the root directory acceptable? > > > > > > On 9/24/07, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Ben Speakmon wrote: > > > > > I wasn't sure what to make of it either; the release docs don't > > > > mention it > > > > > specifically. The source and javadoc jars, BTW, are intended to be > > > > deployed > > > > > next to the final build in the maven repo. It won't be hard to > make > > > > sure > > > > > they get in there. Is there a consensus that it's required for > this > > > > release? > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't have an official reference either, but I remember votes that > > > > were canceled because of this. Here is an example for that I found > in > > > > the archives [1]. > > > > > > > > Oliver > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--3rd-attempt:-Release-commons-io-1.3.2-t3880798.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/24/07, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> Everything looks good, except for one thing, which I think needs > to > > > > be > > > > >> fixed: the jar with the javadocs does not contain NOTICE.txt and > > > > >> LICENSE.txt. (The jar with the sources contains these files, but > > > > they > > > > >> are stored in the top level rather than in META-INF; don't know > > > > whether > > > > >> this is problematic.) > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
