Fork me on GitHub
#tools-build
<
2023-10-05
>
mpenet08:10:04

It seems now clojars requires "<licenses>..." in pom.xml files, but tools.build doesn't support that just yet. I could provide a patch if there's interest.

mpenet09:10:12

I want to avoid that

souenzzo09:10:23

https://github.com/walmartlabs/lacinia it built with #tools-build, don't use this XML trick and it published into clojars. you can try to reproduce what lacinia does

mpenet09:10:38

The clojars change was made on the 29th of September, I am not sure they’ll be able to deploy the next version

Noah Bogart11:10:29

Why do you want to avoid using a pom template?

tcrawley11:10:36

Note: if a project does not provide a license in a pom currently and already has releases, it can continue to release w/o a license until the end of the year, so you have time to adjust.

mpenet11:10:26

I don't think that's entiredly true, if you publish a new version of a lib you have to adapt

tcrawley11:10:33

Yes, that is true. New projects must start with a license. Existing projects have the time to adjust.

mpenet11:10:34

I just tried to push a new version of https://clojars.org/exoscale/blueprint-core and I get cution error (AuthorizationException) at org.apache.maven.wagon.shared.http.AbstractHttpClientWagon/put (AbstractHttpClientWagon.java:806). Authorization failed for https://repo.clojars.org/exoscale/blueprint-core/maven-metadata.xml 403 Forbidden - the POM file does not include a license. See https://bit.ly/3PQunZU

tcrawley11:10:07

That's because the last version released had a license.

tcrawley11:10:32

Only projects where the last released version did not have a license can continue to not send one.

mpenet11:10:34

the release script didn't change

mpenet11:10:43

I ll double check, but that seems odd

mpenet11:10:09

I suspect somebody might have manually created a pom with the license to avoid this (got back from holidays today). I ll digg

mpenet11:10:17

yes I just noticed

mpenet11:10:19

in any case

mpenet11:10:31

it would be nice if b/write-pom would support a :licenses key

mpenet11:10:44

so that we don't have to put templates in every-one of our repos

mpenet11:10:51

(public ones)

tcrawley11:10:56

Yes, I agree.

mpenet11:10:04

@U064X3EF3. https://github.com/clojure/tools.build/commit/df75a6c3f9d2297f27da572836d004fd66b8d894 Let me know if that's ok, in that case I'd create a jira and follow the usual process.

Noah Bogart11:10:52

I posted the Ask which is where such questions should go first and get voted on to indicate the level of community desire, which should happen before any Jira tickets are opened

mpenet11:10:32

I missed you already did post on ask

👍 1
Alex Miller (Clojure team)12:10:14

I saw the post, will take a look when I have a chance. I’m not too inclined to add a :license attribute but want to consider a few other options

borkdude15:01:10

I ran into this problem as well. What is the de facto solution for build.clj based deployments to add a license?

Alex Miller (Clojure team)15:01:41

I added support for adding generic tags in :pom-data

borkdude15:01:49

cool, so :pom-data is what I need then