sqoop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Attila Szabó <mau...@apache.org>
Subject SQOOP LICENSE.txt question
Date Fri, 03 Nov 2017 01:15:27 GMT
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>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message