sqoop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Attila Szabó <mau...@apache.org>
Subject Re: SQOOP LICENSE.txt question
Date Tue, 05 Dec 2017 16:10:45 GMT
Hey Bogi,

AWESOME!!! Many thanks for taking this initiative, helps a lot.

I'll adjust the changes in a few hours ( right now I'm traveling!)

Many thanks once more,
Attila

On Dec 5, 2017 12:35 PM, "Boglarka Egyed" <bogi@apache.org> wrote:

> 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