incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "robert burrell donkin" <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Incubator PMC to approve ActiveMQ 4.0 Release (new binary)
Date Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:52:34 GMT
On 6/5/06, James Strachan <> wrote:
> We ended up recutting the binary of the 4.0 release of ActiveMQ to
> address a few issues brought up in the Incubator PMC vote; I'd just
> like to call another vote to explicitly approve the new binary distro
> to avoid confusion (as most Incubator PMC folks voted on the previous
> binary).
> Can I ask the Incubator PMC to please approve the new binary for the
> ActiveMQ 4.0 release.

i'm a little worried by the contents of the META-INF for the

 COPYRIGHT         - IBM copyright claim. does this apply? why is this here
rather than in the NOTICE?
 DISCLAIMER.txt    - incubation warning text (good :-)
 LICENSE               - Apache License 2.0
 LICENSE.txt          - also Apache License 2.0 why two copies?
 NOTICE                 - NOTICE file pertainning to Apache Darby
 NOTICE.txt            - another NOTICE file. why are two required?

seems a little borderline to me. i'd like to hear other opinions or
clarifications before definitively casting a vote.

plus a few suggestions for future releases:

* the MANIFEST lacks a Implementation-Vendor-Id. not reported harmful but is
in the spec. suggested value: org.apache.
* the MANIFEST lacks a Specification-Version but has an
Implementation-Version. suggested value 4.0.
* better if the source extracts into a directory with a different name from
the binary distribution. for example, incubator-activemq-src for the source
and incubator-activemq for the binary (say.
* i would prefer the binaries and distributions names to contain apache. for
example apache-incubator-activemq.

- robert

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message