sqoop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Boglarka Egyed <b...@apache.org>
Subject Re: SQOOP LICENSE.txt question
Date Tue, 05 Dec 2017 11:35:18 GMT
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 <maugli@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>
>

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