> On 15 May 2015, at 01:42, Justin Mclean <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Seems OK but +0 until LICENSE issue explained/resolved. > > I checked: > - File contains “incubating” > - Signatures and hashes correct > - DISCLAIMER exists > - LICENSE may some issues > - NOTICE correct > - all source has Apache headers > - can compile from source > - test fail but that probably my setup > > LICENSE issues: > - Looks like there may be an issue with the app-packages directory.. This is > bundled into the source release and while there is a LICENSE file in the > directory the content of the LICENSE file in this directory don’t seem to > reflect what is in the top level LICENSE file. [1] From a quick look I > couldn’t see anything that was bundled that isn’t the the top level LICENSE > but it seems a little odd. >
That's odd: I don't see it $ find . -name LICENSE ./LICENSE ./slider-agent/src/main/python/jinja2/LICENSE ./slider-agent/src/main/python/kazoo/LICENSE we have a LICENSE file for the jinja and kazoo python libraries we pull in/redist as source. Is that what you are referring to? > I also notice this in the pom.xml file - should this be there and if so why? > <licenseMerge>GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), Version 2.1|LGPL > 2.1</licenseMerge> that just tells the merge checker which strings to merge together when generating aggregate reports of what licenses you depend on. We don't have any such dependencies; it's probably just there because we cut and paste it in while setting up the license check. I can cut the line from the source if you want; it doesn't make any difference to the build. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
