Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 500248
Pre-Review Request: plexus-cli - Command Line Interface facilitator for Plexus
Last modified: 2009-09-14 05:00:16 EDT
Package needed for Maven 2.0.8
Spec URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~fnasser/plexus-cli.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~fnasser/plexus-cli-1.2-5.jpp6.src.rpm
The Plexus project seeks to create end-to-end developer tools for
writing applications. At the core is the container, which can be
embedded or for a full scale application server. There are many
reusable components for hibernate, form processing, jndi, i18n,
velocity, etc. Plexus also includes an application server which
is like a J2EE application server, without all the baggage.
- there are 3 sources without URLs
- I can't reproduce the source tarball as I get:
svn: URL 'http://svn.codehaus.org/plexus/plexus-tools/tags/plexus-cli-1.2' doesn't exist
- the license should be "ASL 2.0"
- I don't see any license in the sources nor on their website; how do we know it's ASL 2.0?
Sources moved upstream, fixed URL.
Fixed license. Assuming the text below applies to the whole plexus project:
But the truth is, in this particular subproject that header is not to be found in any file. Sort of weird.
Anyway, the new spec file is in place and the SRPM is now:
Thanks for catching the SVN URL problem.
Spot, can we assume the text regarding licensing being ASL 2.0 at:
applies to the whole project? The files in this package (569 lines in total among 4 files) have no license headers and there is no license text in SVN.
Fernando: Thanks for fixing the steps to reproduce the source tarball. I'm not sure of the license field being "ASL 2.0 and Plexus" -- shouldn't it just be "ASL 2.0"?
(In reply to comment #3)
> Spot, can we assume the text regarding licensing being ASL 2.0 at:
> applies to the whole project? The files in this package (569 lines in total
> among 4 files) have no license headers and there is no license text in SVN.
Given how divergent the licensing has been in the various plexus bits, I don't think we can safely make that assumption. We need upstream to clarify things, preferrably by fixing their file attribution.
So is someone going to ask about it on the plexus mailing-lists?
I poked around http://jira.codehaus.org a little but was not smart enough to work out where this should be filed.
Well I filed http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/PLX-418 under unknown component.
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/PLX-418 has been fixed (thanks, Paul Gier!) in trunk. Spot, are we good to go ahead here?
As with 500252, I'd like to see a fixed SRPM with the proper license tag before letting this go forward.
(In reply to comment #9)
> As with 500252, I'd like to see a fixed SRPM with the proper license tag before
> letting this go forward.
Do we need to put the license headers as a patch or we can just add a comment pointing to the jira issue for clarification?
Just make a new SRPM where the source files are properly licensed, please.
Full review request (not just a pre-review): bug #518550.
Drop review flag. It was reviewed in #518550