tika-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jukka Zitting" <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Tika v0.1 thoughts
Date Tue, 20 Nov 2007 03:33:23 GMT
Hi,

On Nov 19, 2007 3:59 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> I think releasing binaries and source code in separate files is ok, as
> long as all distributed artifacts contain the NOTICE and LICENSE file.

Yes. The main release artifact is always the source package, and other
artifacts can be included in the release as long as they carry the
appropriate licensing information.

Looking back at my original message, it reads like I was suggesting
just the binary jar file, but that was certainly not my intention.
What I typically do for Apache releases is a) tag the source tree in
the repository, b) export it to local file system, c) package that
export as the main source artifact, and d) build any binary artifacts
from the exported source.

> Current, NOTICE.txt says
>
>   This product includes software developed by Andy Clark.
>
> Could we specify what this software is? It makes it easier to keep
> track of things.

Sami added that for the NekoHTML dependency. I don't think we really
need that line unless we actually bundle the dependencies with Tika
releases.

> Also, I think NOTICE and LICENSE (without .txt extension) are the
> preferred filenames, can someone confirm?

I believe those are the canonical names, but the .txt extensions are
accepted. Having the .txt extension makes life easier at least on
Windows.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

Mime
View raw message