If I remember correctly, there is a maven transition nearly completed. Ivy is a good option, but if maven is already done, why not use that?
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > 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 -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de
