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 07:56:42 GMT
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 L├ęcharny
> www.iktek.com
>
>



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

Mime
View raw message