You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wookie.apache.org by Paul Sharples <p....@bolton.ac.uk> on 2011/05/20 17:33:04 UTC
New build/s for wookie - new request for testing (RC2)
Hi all,
I've uploaded some new builds for the 0.9.0 branch (and called them
RC2). FYI: The standalone and war builds contained quite a few more
libraries than the source build, so I had to track them down and so have
now put those specific ones in the RUNTIME_LICENSE file, found at the
root of the standalone and war distros. If the licence files are now in
order, I will close the remaining JIRA issues against it.
http://people.apache.org/~psharples/wookie/staging-area/0p9p0/rc2/
Hopefully we are there now.
thanks
Paul
P.S - We *should* have all the license issues sorted out now (however,
we're still waiting on the legal-discuss@apache.org list for a reply
about one particular license -
http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/viewcvs/~checkout~/XPP3/java/LICENSE.txt), but
we think it is okay.
Re: New build/s for wookie - new request for testing (RC2)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
To the best of my knowledge this is good to go. I've not made the
suggested change as the file is not in trunk, I'll add it when it is
merged with trunk.
Ross
On 22 June 2011 10:22, Paul Sharples <p....@bolton.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 22/06/2011 10:14, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>> On 22 June 2011 09:55, Paul Sharples<p....@bolton.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22/06/2011 03:10, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm verifying wookie-198 - I have had rather too much red wine to be
>>>> doing this, but I promised Scott and he bought me a beer so I'm
>>>> trying...
>>>>
>>>> Problem is I still can't find any reference to some of the jars
>>>> identified in wookie-198
>>>>
>>>> There are also a whole bunch of jars mentioned in runtime_licence that
>>>> are not included in the distribution (e.g. lucene-core)
>>>
>>> The issue is that both the standalone/WAR builds contain extra jars,
>>> which
>>> the src build does not. For example lucene-core can be found under...
>>>
>>>
>>> org.apache.incubator.wookie-standalone-RC2-0.9.0-20110520\build\webapp\wookie\WEB-INF\lib\
>>>
>>> Hence why for the standalone/WAR builds there is an additional
>>> RUNTIME_LICENSE file.
>>
>> OK, that makes some sense. I was starting with the source distribution
>> and that includes the RUNTIME_LICENCES file which is confusing. I
>> don't think it is a problem for this release - having extra licence
>> information in there is not the same as not having a complete list of
>> licence. However, I think it can be improved in the future, if only by
>> clearly labelling the two licence files in their text. We probably
>> want to add some header text in each, something like:
>>
>> "The LICENCE and RUNTIME_LICENCE files contain licence information for
>> Apache Wookie. Apache Wookie is released under the Apache Licence v.2
>> and depends on many other software releases whose respective licences
>> are recorded in the files LICENCE (for building) and RUNTIME_LICENCE
>> (for executing)."
>>
>> Does that capture the intent? If so I'll add it to SVN.
>
> Yes, I think so.
>
>>>> It's actually very difficult to review this as there is minimal
>>>> correlation between the licence and the jar in question. I think we
>>>> need to use a clearer licence model. We should consider creating a
>>>> license folder and within that put all the license files that we need,
>>>> named in such a way that it is easy to look trough ivy.xml and the
>>>> widget lib folders and cross check.
>>>>
>>> Agreed, but I was following the suggestions made in WOOKIE-198...
>>>
>>> "The best option is to group the jars with it's respective license and
>>> list
>>> them explicitly, this allows future automation to see if all the jars are
>>> mentioned in the license, see example :
>>>
>>>
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/photark/trunk/distribution/src/main/release/bin/LICENSE"
>>
>> Yes, this is perfectly acceptable. I was just insisting that it be
>> done the way I'm used to. This approach is fine, the only problem is
>> that I was doing it manually not with tools. We need to get those
>> tools available.
>>
>> I'll continue to do execution tests.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>
>
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: New build/s for wookie - new request for testing (RC2)
Posted by Paul Sharples <p....@bolton.ac.uk>.
On 22/06/2011 10:14, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 22 June 2011 09:55, Paul Sharples<p....@bolton.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 22/06/2011 03:10, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> I'm verifying wookie-198 - I have had rather too much red wine to be
>>> doing this, but I promised Scott and he bought me a beer so I'm
>>> trying...
>>>
>>> Problem is I still can't find any reference to some of the jars
>>> identified in wookie-198
>>>
>>> There are also a whole bunch of jars mentioned in runtime_licence that
>>> are not included in the distribution (e.g. lucene-core)
>> The issue is that both the standalone/WAR builds contain extra jars, which
>> the src build does not. For example lucene-core can be found under...
>>
>> org.apache.incubator.wookie-standalone-RC2-0.9.0-20110520\build\webapp\wookie\WEB-INF\lib\
>>
>> Hence why for the standalone/WAR builds there is an additional
>> RUNTIME_LICENSE file.
> OK, that makes some sense. I was starting with the source distribution
> and that includes the RUNTIME_LICENCES file which is confusing. I
> don't think it is a problem for this release - having extra licence
> information in there is not the same as not having a complete list of
> licence. However, I think it can be improved in the future, if only by
> clearly labelling the two licence files in their text. We probably
> want to add some header text in each, something like:
>
> "The LICENCE and RUNTIME_LICENCE files contain licence information for
> Apache Wookie. Apache Wookie is released under the Apache Licence v.2
> and depends on many other software releases whose respective licences
> are recorded in the files LICENCE (for building) and RUNTIME_LICENCE
> (for executing)."
>
> Does that capture the intent? If so I'll add it to SVN.
Yes, I think so.
>>> It's actually very difficult to review this as there is minimal
>>> correlation between the licence and the jar in question. I think we
>>> need to use a clearer licence model. We should consider creating a
>>> license folder and within that put all the license files that we need,
>>> named in such a way that it is easy to look trough ivy.xml and the
>>> widget lib folders and cross check.
>>>
>> Agreed, but I was following the suggestions made in WOOKIE-198...
>>
>> "The best option is to group the jars with it's respective license and list
>> them explicitly, this allows future automation to see if all the jars are
>> mentioned in the license, see example :
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/photark/trunk/distribution/src/main/release/bin/LICENSE"
> Yes, this is perfectly acceptable. I was just insisting that it be
> done the way I'm used to. This approach is fine, the only problem is
> that I was doing it manually not with tools. We need to get those
> tools available.
>
> I'll continue to do execution tests.
>
> Ross
>
Re: New build/s for wookie - new request for testing (RC2)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 22 June 2011 09:55, Paul Sharples <p....@bolton.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 22/06/2011 03:10, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>> I'm verifying wookie-198 - I have had rather too much red wine to be
>> doing this, but I promised Scott and he bought me a beer so I'm
>> trying...
>>
>> Problem is I still can't find any reference to some of the jars
>> identified in wookie-198
>>
>> There are also a whole bunch of jars mentioned in runtime_licence that
>> are not included in the distribution (e.g. lucene-core)
>
> The issue is that both the standalone/WAR builds contain extra jars, which
> the src build does not. For example lucene-core can be found under...
>
> org.apache.incubator.wookie-standalone-RC2-0.9.0-20110520\build\webapp\wookie\WEB-INF\lib\
>
> Hence why for the standalone/WAR builds there is an additional
> RUNTIME_LICENSE file.
OK, that makes some sense. I was starting with the source distribution
and that includes the RUNTIME_LICENCES file which is confusing. I
don't think it is a problem for this release - having extra licence
information in there is not the same as not having a complete list of
licence. However, I think it can be improved in the future, if only by
clearly labelling the two licence files in their text. We probably
want to add some header text in each, something like:
"The LICENCE and RUNTIME_LICENCE files contain licence information for
Apache Wookie. Apache Wookie is released under the Apache Licence v.2
and depends on many other software releases whose respective licences
are recorded in the files LICENCE (for building) and RUNTIME_LICENCE
(for executing)."
Does that capture the intent? If so I'll add it to SVN.
>> It's actually very difficult to review this as there is minimal
>> correlation between the licence and the jar in question. I think we
>> need to use a clearer licence model. We should consider creating a
>> license folder and within that put all the license files that we need,
>> named in such a way that it is easy to look trough ivy.xml and the
>> widget lib folders and cross check.
>>
>
> Agreed, but I was following the suggestions made in WOOKIE-198...
>
> "The best option is to group the jars with it's respective license and list
> them explicitly, this allows future automation to see if all the jars are
> mentioned in the license, see example :
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/photark/trunk/distribution/src/main/release/bin/LICENSE"
Yes, this is perfectly acceptable. I was just insisting that it be
done the way I'm used to. This approach is fine, the only problem is
that I was doing it manually not with tools. We need to get those
tools available.
I'll continue to do execution tests.
Ross
Re: New build/s for wookie - new request for testing (RC2)
Posted by Paul Sharples <p....@bolton.ac.uk>.
On 22/06/2011 03:10, Ross Gardler wrote:
> I'm verifying wookie-198 - I have had rather too much red wine to be
> doing this, but I promised Scott and he bought me a beer so I'm
> trying...
>
> Problem is I still can't find any reference to some of the jars
> identified in wookie-198
>
> There are also a whole bunch of jars mentioned in runtime_licence that
> are not included in the distribution (e.g. lucene-core)
The issue is that both the standalone/WAR builds contain extra jars,
which the src build does not. For example lucene-core can be found under...
org.apache.incubator.wookie-standalone-RC2-0.9.0-20110520\build\webapp\wookie\WEB-INF\lib\
Hence why for the standalone/WAR builds there is an additional
RUNTIME_LICENSE file.
> It's actually very difficult to review this as there is minimal
> correlation between the licence and the jar in question. I think we
> need to use a clearer licence model. We should consider creating a
> license folder and within that put all the license files that we need,
> named in such a way that it is easy to look trough ivy.xml and the
> widget lib folders and cross check.
>
Agreed, but I was following the suggestions made in WOOKIE-198...
"The best option is to group the jars with it's respective license and
list them explicitly, this allows future automation to see if all the
jars are mentioned in the license, see example :
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/photark/trunk/distribution/src/main/release/bin/LICENSE"
> licence/activation_license.txt
> licence/jetty_license.txt
>
> This will make it much simpler to check (regardless of how much red
> wine has been consumed).
>
> Ross
>
> On 18 June 2011 01:03, Ross Gardler<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>> Sorry,
>>
>> I'm really unbelievably busy right now. However, we are at an event
>> together next week working on Wookie. I'll be in the late night
>> hacking room with a beer. Come find me and make me do it then (if not
>> already done).
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> On 16 June 2011 17:33, Scott Wilson<sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [Bump!]
>>>
>>> Can someone check the license files etc in the RC2 distros and (hopefully) close these remaining issues?
>>>
>>> WOOKIE-195
>>> Source and Binary distribution need a few more disclaimers and notices
>>>
>>> WOOKIE-198
>>> Standalone binary distribution does not mention 3rd party license library licenses
>>>
>>> WOOKIE-200
>>> Source distribution is missing MIT license for JQuery
>>>
>>> S
>>>
>>> On 1 Jun 2011, at 19:14, Scott Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think this may have got "buried" when there were a lot of 0.9.1 commits going in.
>>>>
>>>> I've tried them all out now and had no problems other than having to "chmod +x startup.sh" on the standalone version. Can everyone else give them a try so we can finish the release?
>>>>
>>>> S
>>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>>> From: Paul Sharples<p....@bolton.ac.uk>
>>>>> Date: 20 May 2011 16:33:04 GMT+01:00
>>>>> To: wookie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: New build/s for wookie - new request for testing (RC2)
>>>>> Reply-To: wookie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've uploaded some new builds for the 0.9.0 branch (and called them RC2). FYI: The standalone and war builds contained quite a few more libraries than the source build, so I had to track them down and so have now put those specific ones in the RUNTIME_LICENSE file, found at the root of the standalone and war distros. If the licence files are now in order, I will close the remaining JIRA issues against it.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~psharples/wookie/staging-area/0p9p0/rc2/
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully we are there now.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S - We *should* have all the license issues sorted out now (however, we're still waiting on the legal-discuss@apache.org list for a reply about one particular license - http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/viewcvs/~checkout~/XPP3/java/LICENSE.txt), but we think it is okay.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ross Gardler<rg...@opendirective.com>
>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>>
>
>
Re: New build/s for wookie - new request for testing (RC2)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
I'm verifying wookie-198 - I have had rather too much red wine to be
doing this, but I promised Scott and he bought me a beer so I'm
trying...
Problem is I still can't find any reference to some of the jars
identified in wookie-198
There are also a whole bunch of jars mentioned in runtime_licence that
are not included in the distribution (e.g. lucene-core)
It's actually very difficult to review this as there is minimal
correlation between the licence and the jar in question. I think we
need to use a clearer licence model. We should consider creating a
license folder and within that put all the license files that we need,
named in such a way that it is easy to look trough ivy.xml and the
widget lib folders and cross check.
licence/activation_license.txt
licence/jetty_license.txt
This will make it much simpler to check (regardless of how much red
wine has been consumed).
Ross
On 18 June 2011 01:03, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> Sorry,
>
> I'm really unbelievably busy right now. However, we are at an event
> together next week working on Wookie. I'll be in the late night
> hacking room with a beer. Come find me and make me do it then (if not
> already done).
>
> Ross
>
> On 16 June 2011 17:33, Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [Bump!]
>>
>> Can someone check the license files etc in the RC2 distros and (hopefully) close these remaining issues?
>>
>> WOOKIE-195
>> Source and Binary distribution need a few more disclaimers and notices
>>
>> WOOKIE-198
>> Standalone binary distribution does not mention 3rd party license library licenses
>>
>> WOOKIE-200
>> Source distribution is missing MIT license for JQuery
>>
>> S
>>
>> On 1 Jun 2011, at 19:14, Scott Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> I think this may have got "buried" when there were a lot of 0.9.1 commits going in.
>>>
>>> I've tried them all out now and had no problems other than having to "chmod +x startup.sh" on the standalone version. Can everyone else give them a try so we can finish the release?
>>>
>>> S
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> From: Paul Sharples <p....@bolton.ac.uk>
>>>> Date: 20 May 2011 16:33:04 GMT+01:00
>>>> To: wookie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: New build/s for wookie - new request for testing (RC2)
>>>> Reply-To: wookie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I've uploaded some new builds for the 0.9.0 branch (and called them RC2). FYI: The standalone and war builds contained quite a few more libraries than the source build, so I had to track them down and so have now put those specific ones in the RUNTIME_LICENSE file, found at the root of the standalone and war distros. If the licence files are now in order, I will close the remaining JIRA issues against it.
>>>>
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~psharples/wookie/staging-area/0p9p0/rc2/
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully we are there now.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> P.S - We *should* have all the license issues sorted out now (however, we're still waiting on the legal-discuss@apache.org list for a reply about one particular license - http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/viewcvs/~checkout~/XPP3/java/LICENSE.txt), but we think it is okay.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
--
Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: New build/s for wookie - new request for testing (RC2)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Sorry,
I'm really unbelievably busy right now. However, we are at an event
together next week working on Wookie. I'll be in the late night
hacking room with a beer. Come find me and make me do it then (if not
already done).
Ross
On 16 June 2011 17:33, Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Bump!]
>
> Can someone check the license files etc in the RC2 distros and (hopefully) close these remaining issues?
>
> WOOKIE-195
> Source and Binary distribution need a few more disclaimers and notices
>
> WOOKIE-198
> Standalone binary distribution does not mention 3rd party license library licenses
>
> WOOKIE-200
> Source distribution is missing MIT license for JQuery
>
> S
>
> On 1 Jun 2011, at 19:14, Scott Wilson wrote:
>
>> I think this may have got "buried" when there were a lot of 0.9.1 commits going in.
>>
>> I've tried them all out now and had no problems other than having to "chmod +x startup.sh" on the standalone version. Can everyone else give them a try so we can finish the release?
>>
>> S
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Paul Sharples <p....@bolton.ac.uk>
>>> Date: 20 May 2011 16:33:04 GMT+01:00
>>> To: wookie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: New build/s for wookie - new request for testing (RC2)
>>> Reply-To: wookie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've uploaded some new builds for the 0.9.0 branch (and called them RC2). FYI: The standalone and war builds contained quite a few more libraries than the source build, so I had to track them down and so have now put those specific ones in the RUNTIME_LICENSE file, found at the root of the standalone and war distros. If the licence files are now in order, I will close the remaining JIRA issues against it.
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~psharples/wookie/staging-area/0p9p0/rc2/
>>>
>>> Hopefully we are there now.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> P.S - We *should* have all the license issues sorted out now (however, we're still waiting on the legal-discuss@apache.org list for a reply about one particular license - http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/viewcvs/~checkout~/XPP3/java/LICENSE.txt), but we think it is okay.
>>
>
>
--
Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: New build/s for wookie - new request for testing (RC2)
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
[Bump!]
Can someone check the license files etc in the RC2 distros and (hopefully) close these remaining issues?
WOOKIE-195
Source and Binary distribution need a few more disclaimers and notices
WOOKIE-198
Standalone binary distribution does not mention 3rd party license library licenses
WOOKIE-200
Source distribution is missing MIT license for JQuery
S
On 1 Jun 2011, at 19:14, Scott Wilson wrote:
> I think this may have got "buried" when there were a lot of 0.9.1 commits going in.
>
> I've tried them all out now and had no problems other than having to "chmod +x startup.sh" on the standalone version. Can everyone else give them a try so we can finish the release?
>
> S
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Paul Sharples <p....@bolton.ac.uk>
>> Date: 20 May 2011 16:33:04 GMT+01:00
>> To: wookie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: New build/s for wookie - new request for testing (RC2)
>> Reply-To: wookie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've uploaded some new builds for the 0.9.0 branch (and called them RC2). FYI: The standalone and war builds contained quite a few more libraries than the source build, so I had to track them down and so have now put those specific ones in the RUNTIME_LICENSE file, found at the root of the standalone and war distros. If the licence files are now in order, I will close the remaining JIRA issues against it.
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~psharples/wookie/staging-area/0p9p0/rc2/
>>
>> Hopefully we are there now.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> P.S - We *should* have all the license issues sorted out now (however, we're still waiting on the legal-discuss@apache.org list for a reply about one particular license - http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/viewcvs/~checkout~/XPP3/java/LICENSE.txt), but we think it is okay.
>
re: New build/s for wookie - new request for testing (RC2)
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
I think this may have got "buried" when there were a lot of 0.9.1 commits going in.
I've tried them all out now and had no problems other than having to "chmod +x startup.sh" on the standalone version. Can everyone else give them a try so we can finish the release?
S
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Paul Sharples <p....@bolton.ac.uk>
> Date: 20 May 2011 16:33:04 GMT+01:00
> To: wookie-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: New build/s for wookie - new request for testing (RC2)
> Reply-To: wookie-dev@incubator.apache.org
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've uploaded some new builds for the 0.9.0 branch (and called them RC2). FYI: The standalone and war builds contained quite a few more libraries than the source build, so I had to track them down and so have now put those specific ones in the RUNTIME_LICENSE file, found at the root of the standalone and war distros. If the licence files are now in order, I will close the remaining JIRA issues against it.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~psharples/wookie/staging-area/0p9p0/rc2/
>
> Hopefully we are there now.
>
> thanks
>
> Paul
>
> P.S - We *should* have all the license issues sorted out now (however, we're still waiting on the legal-discuss@apache.org list for a reply about one particular license - http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/viewcvs/~checkout~/XPP3/java/LICENSE.txt), but we think it is okay.
Re: New build/s for wookie - new request for testing (RC2)
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 20 May 2011, at 16:33, Paul Sharples wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've uploaded some new builds for the 0.9.0 branch (and called them RC2). FYI: The standalone and war builds contained quite a few more libraries than the source build, so I had to track them down and so have now put those specific ones in the RUNTIME_LICENSE file, found at the root of the standalone and war distros. If the licence files are now in order, I will close the remaining JIRA issues against it.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~psharples/wookie/staging-area/0p9p0/rc2/
>
> Hopefully we are there now.
Brilliant, thanks Paul. I quickly tried the standalone and it worked fine for me (once I did chmod +x on startup.sh)
>
> thanks
>
> Paul
>
> P.S - We *should* have all the license issues sorted out now (however, we're still waiting on the legal-discuss@apache.org list for a reply about one particular license - http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/viewcvs/~checkout~/XPP3/java/LICENSE.txt), but we think it is okay.