I just fixed commons-httpclient to include the NOTICE.txt in META-INF
commons-betwixt 0.5 and commons-jxpath 1.2 source distribution in
http://archive.apache.org/dist/commons/betwixt/source/ does not contain the
required NOTICE...
I've added it manually to fix the source.jars
commons-pool 1.0 is
Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> I don't see why people are voting -1 on all of this when its only
> certain jars in question. IMO those that have an AL 2.0 and NOTICE
> file are good to go. Those with missing bits should be -1 (betwixt
> 0.5, httpclient 3.1, jxpath 1.2, pool 1.0
On Feb 5, 2008 10:30 AM, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to previous discution, the maven -sources.jar bundles that haven't
> yet been deployed on maven "central" repository require a PMC vote.
>
> They are just a repackaging of the original -src.zip source distribution,
> an
On Feb 5, 2008 2:58 PM, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Most public artifacts on maven "central" have no such cource bundles, even
> recent ones when built with maven. see commons-httpclient 3.1 :-/
In that case, commons-httpclient is
- not using a Maven 2 build
- either not using t
The issue is not to produce those source bundles, but to get them from
project dependencies from public repositories.
Most public artifacts on maven "central" have no such cource bundles, even
recent ones when built with maven. see commons-httpclient 3.1 :-/
The issue discussed here is to repacka
2008/2/5, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Maven could/should be changed to use -src.zip if -sources.jar is
> missing ... seems to me that would be much less effort overall.
I do not know where you do see the problem with Maven. The projects
using M2 builds with the commons-parent POM *and* building
Because some IDEs already support source zips.
There are also far fewer IDEs than there are missing source jars.
S///
On 05/02/2008, Torsten Curdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah ...I can also not see how that is LESS effort.
>
> cheers
> --
> Torsten
>
>
> On 05.02.2008, at 13:48, nicolas de l
Yeah ...I can also not see how that is LESS effort.
cheers
--
Torsten
On 05.02.2008, at 13:48, nicolas de loof wrote:
Right,
maven SHOULD support those source distribution bundles,
eclipse, netbeans and idea SHOULD support them also
all of them SHOULD support heterogeneous folders (src/java,
Eclipse already does - I'm using the source zips for various commons jars..
No idea about whether Netbeans or Idea support them.
On 05/02/2008, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right,
>
> maven SHOULD support those source distribution bundles,
> eclipse, netbeans and idea SHOULD suppo
Right,
maven SHOULD support those source distribution bundles,
eclipse, netbeans and idea SHOULD support them also
all of them SHOULD support heterogeneous folders (src/java, src/main/java,
src/share ...) in such archives.
... much less effort ?
Nico.
2008/2/5, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Ma
Maven could/should be changed to use -src.zip if -sources.jar is
missing ... seems to me that would be much less effort overall.
S///
On 05/02/2008, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Only -sources.jar are downloaded by maven and added to IDE for
> source-debugging.
>
> Existing src-dist
Only -sources.jar are downloaded by maven and added to IDE for
source-debugging.
Existing src-dists require users to manually do the unzip & jar I've done
2008/2/5, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> -1, for the following reasons:
>
> - these are new distributions and all new distributions must contai
Right,
Nico.
2008/2/5, Torsten Curdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I suggest we cancel/postpone the vote until we hear back from the board.
> I've just sent the mail.
>
> cheers
> --
> Torsten
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL P
-1, for the following reasons:
- these are new distributions and all new distributions must contain
NOTICE and LICENSE files; not all of them do.
- at least one of the repackaged jars does not correspond with the
release src.zip file
Why not just upload the existing source zip or tgz files?
No re
I suggest we cancel/postpone the vote until we hear back from the board.
I've just sent the mail.
cheers
--
Torsten
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-0: I do not agree that a "re-packaging" does not qualify as a
distribution. But I am no lawyer. Therefore, I won't block.
--
Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before
you break 'em.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time)
-
Thought the agreement was to check with the board/legal about the
license files first? Or did I miss that?
cheers
--
Torsten
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+100 ... enough ? ;-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> According to previous discution, the maven -sources.jar
> bundles that haven't
> yet been deployed on maven "central" repository require a PMC vote.
>
> They are just a repackaging of the original -src.zip source
> distribution, and are NOT conside
According to previous discution, the maven -sources.jar bundles that haven't
yet been deployed on maven "central" repository require a PMC vote.
They are just a repackaging of the original -src.zip source distribution,
and are NOT considered as a new release of the considered apache commons
compon
Phil Steitz wrote:
On Feb 2, 2008 3:44 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
simon wrote:
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 15:25 -0600, Curt Arnold wrote:
On Feb 2, 2008, at 2:08 PM, nicolas de loof wrote:
on [EMAIL PROTECTED],
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-repository/200802.mbox
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 16:09 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> First we have to decide whether this maven repo pushing business
> constititutes a release. If its us (i.e. ASF and not some third party
> package-maker) who is doing the publication, then I think it does.
> This means we have to VOTE before
On Feb 2, 2008 3:44 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> simon wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 15:25 -0600, Curt Arnold wrote:
> >> On Feb 2, 2008, at 2:08 PM, nicolas de loof wrote:
> >> on [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-repository/200802.mbox/
simon wrote:
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 15:25 -0600, Curt Arnold wrote:
On Feb 2, 2008, at 2:08 PM, nicolas de loof wrote:
on [EMAIL PROTECTED],
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-repository/200802.mbox/thread
LICENSE, NOTICE and other *.txt files (release note, readme ...) have
been ad
On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 15:25 -0600, Curt Arnold wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2008, at 2:08 PM, nicolas de loof wrote:
> on [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-repository/200802.mbox/thread
>
> LICENSE, NOTICE and other *.txt files (release note, readme ...) have
> been added
On Feb 2, 2008, at 2:08 PM, nicolas de loof wrote:
on [EMAIL PROTECTED],
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-repository/200802.mbox/thread
LICENSE, NOTICE and other *.txt files (release note, readme ...) have
been added at jar root.
I can rebuild the jars with those files in META-IN
I've put some -sources.jars in :
http://people.apache.org/~nicolas/missing-commons-sources.jar/
Those one have been created by a script :
- create list of commons-* without -sources.jar in repo
- search for a src-zip distribution in www.apache.org/dist
- wget available ones
- unzip, jar a src/ja
On 01.02.2008, at 21:09, nicolas de loof wrote:
Hello,
Many apache commons have no -source.jar bundle in maven "central"
repo. I've
created some of them based on the official source distribution for my
personnal use.
Would you allow me use
/x1/www/people.apache.org/repo/m1-ibiblio-rsync-re
Hello,
Many apache commons have no -source.jar bundle in maven "central" repo. I've
created some of them based on the official source distribution for my
personnal use.
Would you allow me use
/x1/www/people.apache.org/repo/m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository/ for adding them,
or do you prefer a more form
28 matches
Mail list logo
