On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:11 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > So I'll be up front - I have mixed feelings about the download page. I > love the format, it works well. I dislike that you're linking to > unapproved releases, but it does have a decent warning sign. > > The release notes / download page is only available through direct link (it's not linked from anywhere on the site whatsoever). What would be the preferred alternative? Not staging the release notes, and linking to all artifacts directly within the vote email? > Some items I'm noticing: > > - The included dockerfile should reference the guacamole community instead > a single author for the maintainer > Fair enough. The single author is a holdover from the pre-Apache days. I'll open an issue to address this. > - There's a few files such as Makefile.in that have a mix of ASF and > non-ASF headers, which isn't really appropriate. Makefile.in is autogenerated. Non-ASF headers are present because they're placed there by GNU Autotools. I don't think it's possible to configure autotools to not include their headers in its output. I also don't see the FSF > claim in the License file. > > Does the license of autotools need to be included in LICENSE? I do see reference to autotools being approved for usage within the ASF, but not any example to how the license of those tools should be cited in practice, being not a bundled dependency per se. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools What would you recommend here? Thanks, - Mike
