You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@sqoop.apache.org by Boglarka Egyed <bo...@apache.org> on 2017/12/05 11:35:18 UTC
Re: SQOOP LICENSE.txt question
Hi Attila,
I am not a PMC Member but I took a look and found that e.g. for Flume the
version handling is the same, see https://github.com/apache/
flume/blob/trunk/LICENSE or for the latest Sqoop2 release too:
https://github.com/apache/sqoop/blob/sqoop2/LICENSE.txt
Based on this I would say we should follow the existing process and also
regarding the binary/source tar.gz files I would do the same as in the
previous release.
Of course, a confirmation from a PMC Member would be great.
Cheers,
Bogi
On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Attila Szabó <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Dear PMC members,
>
> During the preparation of 1.4.7 I've found something interesting in
> connection with the LICENSE.txt file we've used to bound together with the
> SQOOP tar.gz files.
>
> As I've seen since 1.4.0-incubating (before that I've got no information,
> as I've checked it from the location http://archive.apache.org/dist/sqoop/
> ) we've never filled out the proper version number of the dependencies, but
> rather just keeping it in the following format:
> lib/xy-<version>.jar - where xy would be the name of the related
> dependency, but the "<version>" placeholder never filled with the proper
> version number.
>
> I've also found some discrepancy between the LICENSE.txt convention of the
> binary/source tar.gz files from version to version. A good example for
> that:
> - in case of 1.4.5 in the source jar only those jars are listed which are
> bound within the tar.gz
> - in case of 1.4.6 in the source jar all of the jars are listed which had
> been used for the binary version as well.
>
> My questions are the following:
> - Should we follow the existing process with 1.4.7, and not filling the
> exact version numbers, or should we ship with a fully LICENSE.txt?
> - Should we make a difference between the source and binary tar.gz files
> (like in case of 1.4.5) or should we follow the convention of the very last
> release (1.4.6)?
>
> Looking forward reading your answers,
>
> Yours,
> Attila
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_
> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_
> source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
Re: SQOOP LICENSE.txt question
Posted by Attila Szabó <ma...@apache.org>.
Hello everyone,
Though Bogi's discovery made a strong pro on the side to keep the
LICENSE.txt like it is (and as it were before),
after checking other projects (including Apache Hadoop, Beam, Spark, Arrow,
Mesos, HBase, etc.), I've just become even more and more confused if there
is any standard requirement against our product/community on this front.
I've seen several projects including explicit version numbers, I've seen
projects not even mentioning the dependencies, and also I've seen projects
like Flume and Sqoop just having a "<version>" placeholder instead of
explicitly defined version numbers.
Could anyone from the group of the "veteran" community members give us any
insight which behaviour would be the required one in case of Sqoop?
@Abefine, @Kathleen:
What do you think?
Many thanks in advance,
Attila
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Attila Szabó <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey Bogi,
>
> AWESOME!!! Many thanks for taking this initiative, helps a lot.
>
> I'll adjust the changes in a few hours ( right now I'm traveling!)
>
> Many thanks once more,
> Attila
>
> On Dec 5, 2017 12:35 PM, "Boglarka Egyed" <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Attila,
>>
>> I am not a PMC Member but I took a look and found that e.g. for Flume the
>> version handling is the same, see https://github.com/apache/
>> flume/blob/trunk/LICENSE or for the latest Sqoop2 release too:
>> https://github.com/apache/sqoop/blob/sqoop2/LICENSE.txt
>>
>> Based on this I would say we should follow the existing process and also
>> regarding the binary/source tar.gz files I would do the same as in the
>> previous release.
>>
>> Of course, a confirmation from a PMC Member would be great.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bogi
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Attila Szabó <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear PMC members,
>> >
>> > During the preparation of 1.4.7 I've found something interesting in
>> > connection with the LICENSE.txt file we've used to bound together with
>> the
>> > SQOOP tar.gz files.
>> >
>> > As I've seen since 1.4.0-incubating (before that I've got no
>> information,
>> > as I've checked it from the location http://archive.apache.org/dist
>> /sqoop/
>> > ) we've never filled out the proper version number of the dependencies,
>> but
>> > rather just keeping it in the following format:
>> > lib/xy-<version>.jar - where xy would be the name of the related
>> > dependency, but the "<version>" placeholder never filled with the proper
>> > version number.
>> >
>> > I've also found some discrepancy between the LICENSE.txt convention of
>> the
>> > binary/source tar.gz files from version to version. A good example for
>> > that:
>> > - in case of 1.4.5 in the source jar only those jars are listed which
>> are
>> > bound within the tar.gz
>> > - in case of 1.4.6 in the source jar all of the jars are listed which
>> had
>> > been used for the binary version as well.
>> >
>> > My questions are the following:
>> > - Should we follow the existing process with 1.4.7, and not filling the
>> > exact version numbers, or should we ship with a fully LICENSE.txt?
>> > - Should we make a difference between the source and binary tar.gz files
>> > (like in case of 1.4.5) or should we follow the convention of the very
>> last
>> > release (1.4.6)?
>> >
>> > Looking forward reading your answers,
>> >
>> > Yours,
>> > Attila
>> >
>> > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_
>> > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>> > Virus-free.
>> > www.avg.com
>> > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_
>> > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> >
>>
>
Re: SQOOP LICENSE.txt question
Posted by Attila Szabó <ma...@apache.org>.
Hey Bogi,
AWESOME!!! Many thanks for taking this initiative, helps a lot.
I'll adjust the changes in a few hours ( right now I'm traveling!)
Many thanks once more,
Attila
On Dec 5, 2017 12:35 PM, "Boglarka Egyed" <bo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Attila,
>
> I am not a PMC Member but I took a look and found that e.g. for Flume the
> version handling is the same, see https://github.com/apache/
> flume/blob/trunk/LICENSE or for the latest Sqoop2 release too:
> https://github.com/apache/sqoop/blob/sqoop2/LICENSE.txt
>
> Based on this I would say we should follow the existing process and also
> regarding the binary/source tar.gz files I would do the same as in the
> previous release.
>
> Of course, a confirmation from a PMC Member would be great.
>
> Cheers,
> Bogi
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Attila Szabó <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Dear PMC members,
> >
> > During the preparation of 1.4.7 I've found something interesting in
> > connection with the LICENSE.txt file we've used to bound together with
> the
> > SQOOP tar.gz files.
> >
> > As I've seen since 1.4.0-incubating (before that I've got no information,
> > as I've checked it from the location http://archive.apache.org/
> dist/sqoop/
> > ) we've never filled out the proper version number of the dependencies,
> but
> > rather just keeping it in the following format:
> > lib/xy-<version>.jar - where xy would be the name of the related
> > dependency, but the "<version>" placeholder never filled with the proper
> > version number.
> >
> > I've also found some discrepancy between the LICENSE.txt convention of
> the
> > binary/source tar.gz files from version to version. A good example for
> > that:
> > - in case of 1.4.5 in the source jar only those jars are listed which
> are
> > bound within the tar.gz
> > - in case of 1.4.6 in the source jar all of the jars are listed which
> had
> > been used for the binary version as well.
> >
> > My questions are the following:
> > - Should we follow the existing process with 1.4.7, and not filling the
> > exact version numbers, or should we ship with a fully LICENSE.txt?
> > - Should we make a difference between the source and binary tar.gz files
> > (like in case of 1.4.5) or should we follow the convention of the very
> last
> > release (1.4.6)?
> >
> > Looking forward reading your answers,
> >
> > Yours,
> > Attila
> >
> > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_
> > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> > Virus-free.
> > www.avg.com
> > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_
> > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >
>