You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to notifications@freemarker.apache.org by "Siegfried Goeschl (Jira)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2020/08/03 16:02:00 UTC
[jira] [Comment Edited] (FREEMARKER-153) FreeMarker Generator
release preparations
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FREEMARKER-153?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17170137#comment-17170137 ]
Siegfried Goeschl edited comment on FREEMARKER-153 at 8/3/20, 4:01 PM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#licensing-documentation
{noformat}
Each package MUST provide a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file which account for the package's exact content. LICENSE and NOTICE MUST NOT provide unnecessary information about materials which are not bundled in the package, such as separately downloaded dependencies.
For source packages, LICENSE and NOTICE MUST be located at the root of the distribution. For additional packages, they MUST be located in the distribution format's customary location for licensing materials, such as the META-INF directory of Java "jar" files.
{noformat}
My understanding is
* If the Maven module creates a library being publicly available it should have a LICENCE and NOTICE FILE
* The "freemarker-cli" needs this extra LICENCE file hop with since it bundles a lot of libraries
Having said that I found various flavours of LICENCE files being used so I'm still confused so I would like to stick to have a separate LICENCE and NOTICE file for each Maven module
was (Author: sgoeschl):
According to http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#licensing-documentation
{noformat}
Each package MUST provide a LICENSE file and a NOTICE file which account for the package's exact content. LICENSE and NOTICE MUST NOT provide unnecessary information about materials which are not bundled in the package, such as separately downloaded dependencies.
For source packages, LICENSE and NOTICE MUST be located at the root of the distribution. For additional packages, they MUST be located in the distribution format's customary location for licensing materials, such as the META-INF directory of Java "jar" files.
{noformat}
My understanding is
* If the Maven module creates a library being publicly available it should have a LICENCE and NOTICE FILE
* The "freemarker-cli" needs this extra LICENCE file hop with since it bundles a lot of libraries
> FreeMarker Generator release preparations
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FREEMARKER-153
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FREEMARKER-153
> Project: Apache Freemarker
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Siegfried Goeschl
> Assignee: Siegfried Goeschl
> Priority: Major
>
> From [~ddekany@freemail.hu]
> {noformat}
> I said I will help in the Apache release process, so only focusing on that,
> so some points:
> - We are required to have a so-called source release (every other
> artifact is optional in the policy). As we are using the org.apache:apache
> parent, that should generate that automatically, with .asc and sha512 and
> all. But currently it doesn't, because maven-release-plugin config/argument
> is overwritten with this: <arguments>-Dmaven.javadoc.skip=true</arguments>.
> We should keep configuring release at minimum, to avoid such accidents.
> Maybe as in
> https://github.com/apache/freemarker-docgen/blob/master/pom.xml#L70.
> - I assume we also want a binary release, for the CLI only, and
> freemarker-generator-cli-x.y.z-*app*.zip (note the "-app") will be our
> binary release artifact. Then:
> - It bundles some dependency binaries that are not under ASL2 license.
> Unfortunately, the licenses of those must be included in the
> distribution.
> See the LICENSE at
> https://github.com/apache/freemarker-docgen/blob/master/LICENSE. At
> the bottom, it lists the licenses, then it refers to the actual license
> files. As we will have many licenses, let's create a "licenses" directory
> for them. (In the future, the dependencies have to be checked
> for changes.
> Even version upgrades my pull in sneaky transient dependencies. Some
> licenses are not even allowed, so anything but ASL2, MIT,
> BSD-without-advertisement-clause, will need closer attention.)
> - I noticed that the documentation is not included in the binary
> distribution. But because of the extra legal burden including it would
> bring (we have fonts and icons under CC-SA and SIL OFL in the Docgen
> output), I actually prefer that to stay like that.
> - .sha512 file is not yet generated
> - freemarker-generator-cli/src/site: If you agree, instead of this I
> will create freemarker-generator*-site*/src/docgen, and convert the
> Markdown to XDocBook. For now this will be only the CLI documentation, and
> the JavaDoc, as the freemarker-generator-maven-plugin is not ready. One
> annoyance I realized is that we should have Docgen in Maven Central for the
> builds to work reliably in the future, which means that Docgen has to be
> officially released (it never was, it's an internal tool). That would be a
> minimalistic release, means, no announcement, no web site, just the bare
> minimum (i.e., source release, and deployment to Maven Central). I have
> some backlog there (Google keeps nagging me about mobile issues), but I
> hope I can fix that in the coming days, then go through the official
> release process (takes 1-2 weeks).
> - Some smaller things:
> -
> - Having a "release" profile is also hopefully unnecessary, because
> org.apache:apache takes care of signing.
> - We should also remove most plugin version management, as many of
> those versions are set in org.apache:apache.
> - freemarker-generator-cli/templates should be inside
> freemarker-generator-cli/src/main/templates, I guess.
> P.s.: Siegfired asked our opinions in another thread. I did my part, even
> too much (;, so, would be good if others participate in that as well.
> --
> Best regards,
> Daniel Dekany
> {noformat}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)