You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com> on 2009/06/03 19:18:37 UTC
Re: [M10] Fixing README/NOTICE/LICENSE files
In message <4A...@googlemail.com>, Oliver Deakin writes:
>
> Mark Hindess wrote:
> > There appear to be several (non-functional) changes needed to fix the
> > two remaining JIRA for M10. I'd like to commit the attached patch. Do
> > any other committers approve this?
> >
> > The patch fixes:
> >
> > * Rewrite working_vm/make/resources/readme.txt to include the text from the
> > generic README I sent to the list earlier.
> >
> > * Fix the tag replacement during the existing copy for the above readme.txt
> > such that:
> > - it is copied to README to be more consistent with the LICENSE/NOTICE files
> > - replaces the tags in the target (not the source!) so we don't accidentally
> > check in/release a windows x86 specific version this time.
> >
> > * Make sure the jdk/jre/README file is included at (only) the top-level
> > in the hdk and jdk artifacts.
> >
> > * Create a README in the source of the federation build. (It might
> > be less confusing if the README for svn source was different than the
> > README for tar source since the build instructions are different but we
> > can discuss that for M11 perhaps.)
> >
> > * Make sure LICENSE/NOTICE files are added to kernel jars.
> >
> > * Make sure LICENSE/NOTICE files are added to the test support.jar
> > (including re-ordering hy.hdk property to make sure it is defined before
> > the common properties.xml is imported.)
> >
> > * Fix various things to make sure the top-level LICENSE/NOTICE files
> > take priority over those from components - mostly to avoid getting the
> > classlib LICENSE file which doesn't cover ICU4C.
> >
> > Checking this means doing something like:
> >
> > ant bundle-src
> > # untar/unzip the target/apache-harmony-src... artifact
> > cd apache-harmony-src-r780017
> > # check the LICENSE/NOTICE/README [0]
> > ant fetch-depends build bundle-hdk bundle-jdk bundle-jre
> > # for each of the three (hdk/jdk/jre) archives created in target check:
> > # 1) They contain correct LICENSE/NOTICE/README [0]
> > # 2) Any of our jars within the archive contain correct NOTICE/LICENSE
> >
> > Hopefully this covers both the outstanding JIRA for M10. Can someone
> > please sanity check this[1]?
> >
> Ok, it looks good to me. I went through your checklist for the src, jre,
> jdk and hdk distributables, plus some of the jar files contained in each
> of them, and found the right readme, notice and license files as far as
> I could see. The contents of those files also looked correct to me. Im
> +1 to committing this patch - thanks Mark!
Thanks Oliver. Committed in r781482. There were no code changes so
this update doesn't impact any existing testing.
-Mark.
> > Regards,
> > Mark.
> >
> > [0] Be sure to check that the LICENSE file covers ICU4C since I managed to
> > find several ways in which the classlib LICENSE (which doesn't need
> > ICU4C) was getting used in the wrong place.
> >
> > [1] As Oli could confirm I've spent all day cursing about the many ways
> > to get this wrong
> +1 to this also ;)
>
> Regards,
> Oliver
>
> > so it really would not surprise me if someone finds
> > yet another one.
> >
>
> --
> Oliver Deakin
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 7415
> 98.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>
Re: [M10] Fixing README/NOTICE/LICENSE files
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 04/06/2009, Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> In message <25...@mail.gmail.com>, sebb
>
> writes:
> >
> > On 04/06/2009, Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > In message <25...@mail.gmail.com>,
> > > sebb writes:
> > > >
> > > > On 04/06/2009, Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In message <20...@d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>,
> > > > > Mark Hindess writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In message <20...@athena.apache.org>, Mark
> > > > > > Hindess writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Committed in r781482. There were no code changes so this
> > > > > > > update doesn't impact any existing testing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just to clarify, we still need to fix the content of (at least)
> > > > > > the top-level federation build NOTICE file for M10.
> > > > >
> > > > > Based on the discussion on this list, my reading of the thread at:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://markmail.org/thread/shzezyoalnydbflq
> > > > >
> > > > > and some reading of other NOTICE files, I think we just need
> > > > > something like the attached patch for M10.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can I have committer approval and/or comments please? My intention
> > > > > would be to apply the patch twice (to the top-level and classlib
> > > > > NOTICE files).
> > > >
> > > > Most of the patch appears to be the license - PERMISSION - for ICU4J,
> > > > and should therefore be in the LICENSE file.
> > >
> > >
> > > It is also in the LICENSE file. If you think the it should not be
> > > reproduced in full in NOTICE then what would be the minimal sufficient
> > > content with respect to ICU4J for the NOTICE file?
> >
> > +Portions of Apache Harmony's Class Library TEXT module contain JavaDoc
> > +derived from the ICU project.
> > +Copyright (c) 1995-2008 International Business Machines Corporation and othe
> > rs
> >
> > Remove the lines containing ===============.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> I've attached another patch (which also modifies and existing instance
> of "Harmony" to "Apache Harmony" for consistency) for committer approval
> and/or comments.
Looks OK.
> Regards,
>
> Mark.
>
>
>
Re: [M10] Fixing README/NOTICE/LICENSE files
Posted by Oliver Deakin <ol...@googlemail.com>.
That looks good to me Mark - please go ahead and commit.
Regards,
Oliver
Mark Hindess wrote:
> In message <25...@mail.gmail.com>, sebb
> writes:
>
>> On 04/06/2009, Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <25...@mail.gmail.com>,
>>> sebb writes:
>>> >
>>> > On 04/06/2009, Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > In message <20...@d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>,
>>> > > Mark Hindess writes:
>>> > >
>>> > > > In message <20...@athena.apache.org>, Mark
>>> > > > Hindess writes:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > Committed in r781482. There were no code changes so this
>>> > > > > update doesn't impact any existing testing.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Just to clarify, we still need to fix the content of (at least)
>>> > > > the top-level federation build NOTICE file for M10.
>>> > >
>>> > > Based on the discussion on this list, my reading of the thread at:
>>> > >
>>> > > http://markmail.org/thread/shzezyoalnydbflq
>>> > >
>>> > > and some reading of other NOTICE files, I think we just need
>>> > > something like the attached patch for M10.
>>> > >
>>> > > Can I have committer approval and/or comments please? My intention
>>> > > would be to apply the patch twice (to the top-level and classlib
>>> > > NOTICE files).
>>> >
>>> > Most of the patch appears to be the license - PERMISSION - for ICU4J,
>>> > and should therefore be in the LICENSE file.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is also in the LICENSE file. If you think the it should not be
>>> reproduced in full in NOTICE then what would be the minimal sufficient
>>> content with respect to ICU4J for the NOTICE file?
>>>
>> +Portions of Apache Harmony's Class Library TEXT module contain JavaDoc
>> +derived from the ICU project.
>> +Copyright (c) 1995-2008 International Business Machines Corporation and othe
>> rs
>>
>> Remove the lines containing ===============.
>>
>
> Thanks.
>
> I've attached another patch (which also modifies and existing instance
> of "Harmony" to "Apache Harmony" for consistency) for committer approval
> and/or comments.
>
> Regards,
> Mark.
>
>
--
Oliver Deakin
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Re: [M10] Fixing README/NOTICE/LICENSE files
Posted by Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com>.
In message <25...@mail.gmail.com>, sebb
writes:
>
> On 04/06/2009, Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In message <25...@mail.gmail.com>,
> > sebb writes:
> > >
> > > On 04/06/2009, Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In message <20...@d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>,
> > > > Mark Hindess writes:
> > > >
> > > > > In message <20...@athena.apache.org>, Mark
> > > > > Hindess writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Committed in r781482. There were no code changes so this
> > > > > > update doesn't impact any existing testing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just to clarify, we still need to fix the content of (at least)
> > > > > the top-level federation build NOTICE file for M10.
> > > >
> > > > Based on the discussion on this list, my reading of the thread at:
> > > >
> > > > http://markmail.org/thread/shzezyoalnydbflq
> > > >
> > > > and some reading of other NOTICE files, I think we just need
> > > > something like the attached patch for M10.
> > > >
> > > > Can I have committer approval and/or comments please? My intention
> > > > would be to apply the patch twice (to the top-level and classlib
> > > > NOTICE files).
> > >
> > > Most of the patch appears to be the license - PERMISSION - for ICU4J,
> > > and should therefore be in the LICENSE file.
> >
> >
> > It is also in the LICENSE file. If you think the it should not be
> > reproduced in full in NOTICE then what would be the minimal sufficient
> > content with respect to ICU4J for the NOTICE file?
>
> +Portions of Apache Harmony's Class Library TEXT module contain JavaDoc
> +derived from the ICU project.
> +Copyright (c) 1995-2008 International Business Machines Corporation and othe
> rs
>
> Remove the lines containing ===============.
Thanks.
I've attached another patch (which also modifies and existing instance
of "Harmony" to "Apache Harmony" for consistency) for committer approval
and/or comments.
Regards,
Mark.
Re: [M10] Fixing README/NOTICE/LICENSE files
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 04/06/2009, Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> In message <25...@mail.gmail.com>,
>
> sebb writes:
> >
> > On 04/06/2009, Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In message <20...@d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>,
> > > Mark Hindess writes:
> > >
> > > > In message <20...@athena.apache.org>, Mark Hindess
> > > > writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > Committed in r781482. There were no code changes so this
> > > > > update doesn't impact any existing testing.
> > > >
> > > > Just to clarify, we still need to fix the content of (at least)
> > > > the top-level federation build NOTICE file for M10.
> > >
> > > Based on the discussion on this list, my reading of the thread at:
> > >
> > > http://markmail.org/thread/shzezyoalnydbflq
> > >
> > > and some reading of other NOTICE files, I think we just need
> > > something like the attached patch for M10.
> > >
> > > Can I have committer approval and/or comments please? My intention
> > > would be to apply the patch twice (to the top-level and classlib
> > > NOTICE files).
> >
> > Most of the patch appears to be the license - PERMISSION - for ICU4J,
> > and should therefore be in the LICENSE file.
>
>
> It is also in the LICENSE file. If you think the it should not be
> reproduced in full in NOTICE then what would be the minimal sufficient
> content with respect to ICU4J for the NOTICE file?
+Portions of Apache Harmony's Class Library TEXT module contain JavaDoc
+derived from the ICU project.
+Copyright (c) 1995-2008 International Business Machines Corporation and others
Remove the lines containing ===============.
> Regards,
>
> -Mark
>
>
>
Re: [M10] Fixing README/NOTICE/LICENSE files
Posted by Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com>.
In message <25...@mail.gmail.com>,
sebb writes:
>
> On 04/06/2009, Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > In message <20...@d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>,
> > Mark Hindess writes:
> >
> > > In message <20...@athena.apache.org>, Mark Hindess
> > > writes:
> > > >
> > > > Committed in r781482. There were no code changes so this
> > > > update doesn't impact any existing testing.
> > >
> > > Just to clarify, we still need to fix the content of (at least)
> > > the top-level federation build NOTICE file for M10.
> >
> > Based on the discussion on this list, my reading of the thread at:
> >
> > http://markmail.org/thread/shzezyoalnydbflq
> >
> > and some reading of other NOTICE files, I think we just need
> > something like the attached patch for M10.
> >
> > Can I have committer approval and/or comments please? My intention
> > would be to apply the patch twice (to the top-level and classlib
> > NOTICE files).
>
> Most of the patch appears to be the license - PERMISSION - for ICU4J,
> and should therefore be in the LICENSE file.
It is also in the LICENSE file. If you think the it should not be
reproduced in full in NOTICE then what would be the minimal sufficient
content with respect to ICU4J for the NOTICE file?
Regards,
-Mark
Re: [M10] Fixing README/NOTICE/LICENSE files
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 04/06/2009, Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> In message <20...@d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>, Mark
>
> Hindess writes:
> >
> > In message <20...@athena.apache.org>, Mark Hindess
> > > writes:
> > >
> > > Committed in r781482. There were no code changes so this update
> > > doesn't impact any existing testing.
> >
> > Just to clarify, we still need to fix the content of (at least) the
> > top-level federation build NOTICE file for M10.
>
>
> Based on the discussion on this list, my reading of the thread at:
>
> http://markmail.org/thread/shzezyoalnydbflq
>
> and some reading of other NOTICE files, I think we just need something like
> the attached patch for M10.
>
> Can I have committer approval and/or comments please? My intention would be
> to apply the patch twice (to the top-level and classlib NOTICE files).
Most of the patch appears to be the license - PERMISSION - for ICU4J,
and should therefore be in the LICENSE file.
> Regards,
>
> Mark.
>
>
>
Re: [M10] Fixing README/NOTICE/LICENSE files
Posted by Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com>.
In message <20...@d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>, Mark
Hindess writes:
>
> In message <20...@athena.apache.org>, Mark Hindess
> > writes:
> >
> > Committed in r781482. There were no code changes so this update
> > doesn't impact any existing testing.
>
> Just to clarify, we still need to fix the content of (at least) the
> top-level federation build NOTICE file for M10.
Based on the discussion on this list, my reading of the thread at:
http://markmail.org/thread/shzezyoalnydbflq
and some reading of other NOTICE files, I think we just need something like
the attached patch for M10.
Can I have committer approval and/or comments please? My intention would be
to apply the patch twice (to the top-level and classlib NOTICE files).
Regards,
Mark.
Re: [M10] Fixing README/NOTICE/LICENSE files
Posted by Mark Hindess <ma...@googlemail.com>.
In message <20...@athena.apache.org>, Mark Hindess writes:
>
> Committed in r781482. There were no code changes so
> this update doesn't impact any existing testing.
Just to clarify, we still need to fix the content of (at least) the top-level
federation build NOTICE file for M10.
-Mark.