On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 2:51 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 28/03/2008, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday 27 March 2008, sebb wrote: > > > On 26/03/2008, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > The staging area is at: > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~dkulp/stage_cxf/2.0.5-incubator<http://people.apache.org/%7Edkulp/stage_cxf/2.0.5-incubator> > > > > > > The binary jar contains lots of non-CXF jars in the lib directory; > > > these should probably be dropped and listed as external dependencies. > > > > > > Huh? Then the binary distibution wouldn't work. That's silly. Users > > should be able to download this, unpack it, and run the samples and > > stuff to see it working without tramping all over the internet to find > > jars and stuff. If you install MS office on your machine, do you then > > have to go off and find the spell checker, the thesauras, etc...? > > > > > > Well - it makes the download much bigger, and they may have some of > the dependencies already. Also, some of the included jars have been > updated with newer versions. You could provide a separate libraries > archive for the external jars.
If you want a small distribution, just use the source one. The binary distribution are provided as an easy way for the user to use the product and get started. If he has to download and unzip other things, it removes some of the benefit of having a binary distribution. I would agree for optional stuff that we *can not* distribute due to licensing problems for example. > > > > > > > Typo in LICENSE file in binary zip: "librarie" should be "libraries" > > > > > > Fixed on trunk. Good catch. I must have looked at that several times > > and it never triggered my brain. Must be getting old... :-( > > > > > > > > > The CXF jar manifests should really include source and target Java > > > versions. > > > > > > Why? > > > > So that one can tell which Java version is required ... I've honestly never looked at the manifest for such information. If you read the CXF doc, I'm sure you'll find it requires java 5 and that's all you really need. > > > > > > > The CXF jars contain the file DEPENDENCIES in META-INF - this seems > > > out of place. > > > > > > This was discussed on legal-discuss and no objections raised. > > > > > > > Also the DEPENDENCIES contents still refer to jakarta for some > commons > > > modules, and 'Apache Software Foundation' => 'The Apache Software > > > Foundation' > > > > > > Well. It's automatically generated from the information the other > > projects provide. As long as Jakarta/commons keep providing > > crap......... > > Seriously, if the poms say they came from jakarta, the versions we are > > using probably are the jakarta versions. See Davids response at: > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200803.mbox/ > <4047F63C-2D55-437A-AE95-6B52E98BEF7D%40yahoo.com> > > > > > > > > The distributions are in the "dist" directory. The "m2repo" > > > > directory contains the stuff that will by pushed to the > > > > m2-incubating-repository. > > > > > > > > This release is tagged at: > > > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/cxf/tags/cxf-2.0.5-incubat > > > >or/ > > > > > > -1: there should be NOTICE and LICENSE files at the top level in SVN. > > > > SVN is *not* a distribution, so legal problems can't be applied to that afaik. > > > > -1: SVN and the source archive don't agree; there are files and > > > directories in each that are not in the other. > Same as above. It has been said lots of times over the past months that the official release is the *source distribution*, not the svn tag or the binary distro. So i don't see why this would be a problem at all. -- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
