On 2012-02-17 20:50, Jakub Adam wrote:
> Hi Niels,
>> I noticed some files licensed under Apache 2 (and possible also 1). See
>> the "license" attachment.
> From your listing only CommonsHttpSender.java and XML11Char.java are actual
> code under Apache license. I added them to a separate section in
> with their correct license.
>> I had a look in one of them and it suggests that besides EPL-1,
>> Apache 1 and 2, we may find "Common Public License Version 1.0", "Metro
>> Link Public License 1.00" and "Mozilla Public License Version 1.1" in
>> the source. Of course, it could be the result of copy-waste from core
>> eclipse bundles (as eclipse itself contains some of those licenses).
> I searched for all of the mentioned licenses but found no occurrence of
> any other than EPL and Apache-2.0. Surely that list was copied from other
>> Besides those licensed in "license", I also noticed a file called
>> "junit.jar" (in one of the test bundles). I suspect it is an embedded
>> copy of junit4, but it has a BSD license file refering to
>> "hamcrest.org" ...
>> I could recommend using "suspicious-source" for finding questionable
>> file types in the source package. Though for eclipse-mylyn, its result
>> apparently consists of 70% "empty files".>.>
>> Nevertheless, eclipse upstreams tends to embed one or more 3rd party
>> Java library jar files (sometimes cleverly disguised as .zip files).
>> Othertimes they just use them to store various xml files...
> To the files in question:
> * ./org.eclipse.mylyn.tasks/org.eclipse.mylyn.tasks.tests/testdata/*.zip
> these are zip archives containing test data in xml. I think they can be
> left alone.
I believe it is ok.
> binary junit4 jar, I will remove this.
> These jars are in fact zip archives with xml files. As they don't
> contain any
> binaries which would have to be recompiled from source, I'd like to
> keep them
> in place.
I believe this is ok as well.
> Two zipped eclipse projects used as test data. They contain both
> dummy java sources and their
> compiled *.class files. Should I remove the binaries or can I keep
> the archives intact as the
> source codes are available?
> (I will wait for your feedback before changing the upstream tarball.)
I suspect it would be easier / faster to remove the class files and
recompile them than clarify to the ftp-masters why there are precompiled
sources hidden in a jar file.
To be honest, I had hoped for a "drive-by" review on this one. I know
we in src:eclipse remove dummy classes / compiled interfaces only to
rebuild them at runtime (but those weren't "tests"). If it FTBFS after
you start recompiling it (due to test failures), let me know.
>> Given that eclipse-mylyn appears to have migrated to git, I suspect
>> that debian/get-orig-source is broken.
> Updated the script to download files from new location.
>> During build, I noticed two "Java Model Exception: Java Model Status
>> [org.eclipse.mylyn.builds.core does not exist]" exceptions (with
>> stack-traces). It might be a non-issue, but I wanted to make sure you
>> were aware of it.
> I know about the exceptions, but I checked the generated code and it
> seems to be correct, also
> the compiled plugin works as expected.
Thought as much. As I recall we have a similar problem in src:eclipse... :P
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com