Or use Ivy to download from the Maven repo. Upayavira
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013, at 11:01 AM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak) wrote: > Presumably we want wiab to be independent from third party download > websites, so the "get-third-party-libs" script should point to our own > mirror of all those jars? > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Angus Turner > <angusisf...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > +1 to adding all the third party .jars to an ant task. There's a tonne of > > them in there, and it's hard to keep track of what licence what library is > > under. > > > > Thanks > > Angus Turner > > angusisf...@gmail.com > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Ali Lown wrote: > > > > It looks like RC3 will fail at the Incubator vote. (This is both fine > > > > and expected) > > > > > > Yep. > > > > > > > This also conveniently lets us merge some of the other fixes (for > > > > example the broken translations/eclipse) in for RC4. > > > > > > Okay, but don't absorb *too* many changes. > > > > > > > The main problem seems to (still) be the third_party/* files > > > > (particularly in the source release - I don't know if they are okay to > > > > be included in the 'binary' release). > > > > > > A *source* release must be source only. Third party jars aren't source, > > > so shouldn't be included. They are fine in a binary release. > > > > > > > It looks like the easiest way to handle this is to have them all > > > > downloaded during the get-third-party ant task. > > > > > > That would be a reasonable thing for the build script in the src > > > distribution to do, but so long as there is some way (even manual) for > > > that to happen, I don't see it as an issue. > > > > > > > Some comments were raised about the src/python/api files not being > > > > correctly licensed. Manually inspecting them it appears rat wasn't > > > > complaining because they are all Apache licensed, but we have > > > > 'Licensed under the Apache License' used for some, and (the correct?) > > > > 'Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation' in others. > > > > > > The first would be valid for code written elsewhere, and the latter for > > > code being maintained here. Which are they? > > > > > > > We (may) need to file for an ECCN given we use bouncy-castle. (Is this > > > > only an issue if we include it, if we have it fetched by a separate > > > > task (given the IPMC don't seem to like having the jars shipped with > > > > Wave) is it still a problem?) > > > > > > The ECCN stuff is for 'exporting encryption'. If we release a > > > convenience binary, then as far as the US govt is concerned, we need to > > > do the ECCN stuff. > > > > > > Upayavira > > > > > > > > > -- > Saludos, > Bruno González > > _______________________________________________ > Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com > http://www.stenyak.com
