On 4 April 2012 15:33, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Brock Noland <br...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:33 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> The tag to be voted upon: >>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/mrunit/tags/release-0.9.0-incubating/ >>> >>> There's a NOTICE.txt and NOTICE-src.txt at the top level. >>> >>> IMO the primary NOTICE file should be for the source. >>> >> >> So there would be a NOTICE-bin.txt and a NOTICE.txt? > > The Apache License 2.0 only makes mention of a "NOTICE" file, not "NOTICE-bin" > (or "NOTICE-src"). > > The top priority is that the NOTICE[.txt] file in the canonical source release > be correct and complete. That's what we're voting on and what the ASF is > endorsing.
+1 > I haven't yet arrived at a position regarding the -bin/-deps situation. At > this point, I wouldn't -1 a source release that contains irrelevant and > misleading information in a file called "NOTICE-bin.txt" about dependencies > which are not present, but that could change. So long as the file is called NOTICE.txt (or NOTICE) and is at the top-level of a binary archive, it does not matter what it is called in SVN. To avoid confusion, probably best to rename or move the version of the NOTICE file for binary releases. Since the binary file is just an extended version of the source NOTICE file (at least in this case), the binary version could be generated by concatenation. > Marvin Humphrey > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
