mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <gno...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release SSHD 0.6.0
Date Mon, 05 Sep 2011 08:13:47 GMT
Sorry, on the first sentence, I meant "I don't have any problems with
*changing* the way we do things"

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 09:56, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Note that I don't have any problems with the way we do things in mina,
> but fwiw, the core mina library has exactly the same structure:
>  * a binary / source distributions at http://www.apache.org/dist//mina/2.0.4/
>      this source distribution also contains the code in the src directory
>  * another source distribution
>      http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/mina/mina-parent/2.0.4/
> Also, that's true for ftpserver.
>
> Now, the rationale behind the using a src directory is when users
> download the binary + source distributions (which is different from
> building the binary distribution from source).
> If we take mina for example, we have the following folders when you
> unzip both distributions:
>  * dist
>  * docs
>  * lib
>  * src
> If we don't do that, the dist and lib folders would be lost amongst
> the various mina-xxx subfolders containing the source for the mina
> modules.   Imho, it makes a lot of sense.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 08:34, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/2/11 6:58 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>
>>> The NOTICE file is wrong.
>>>
>>> It should start with:
>>>
>>> Apache MINA SSHD
>>> Copyright 2xxx-2011 The Apache Software Foundation
>>>
>>> This product includes software developed by
>>> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>>>
>>> The rest of the NOTICE file is for *required* notices of software that
>>> is included in the release.
>>>
>>> It should not contain the license text; which should be in the LICENSE
>>> file
>>>
>>> Have a look at the httpd ones for an example.
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/
>>>
>>> These are blockers.
>>>
>>> Sorry, don't have time to check for AL headers at present.
>>
>> There is no missing AL. I ran mvn rat:check, all is ok.
>>
>> I agree with the LICENSE.txt file : slf4j is missing. The MINA NOTICE.txt
>> contains all what is needed, it can be a good start for the sshd licences
>> file.
>>
>> Regarding the staging repo, I must admit I don't understand why we have a
>> org/apache/sshd/apache-sshd/0.6.0/ directory and a
>> org/apache/sshd/sshd/0.6.0/ repository ?
>>
>> Otherwise, the apache-sshd/0.6.0/ apache-sshd-0.6.0-src.tar.gz
>> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachemina-016/org/apache/sshd/apache-sshd/0.6.0/apache-sshd-0.6.0-src.tar.gz>
>> file does not reflect the current hierarchy we have on svn, as mentionned by
>> Sebastien. The src subdirectory has been created, and I don't see the
>> rational behind this creation. It's not a blocker for me, but I think this
>> should be fixed.
>>
>> I'd like to see the NOTICE.txt file fixed before the release can be
>> validated, and this is for me a -1.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Cordialement,
>> Emmanuel Lécharny
>> www.iktek.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
>



-- 
------------------------
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com

Mime
View raw message