True, I would hate to see us inject ivy if we know we are going to just switch to maven.
~Michael On 6/21/13 4:34 AM, "Christian Grobmeier" <grobme...@gmail.com> wrote: >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
