[MINOR] chore: Fix the issue of license loss#2246
Conversation
|
Before this PR, The files under META-INF are as follows: I can not find LICENSE file in META-INF directory. But I found META-INF/license directory which is from To be honest, I don't know whether these third-party library needs to be in directory META-INF/licenses, because these third-party are need by I guess that In some OS where files are not case sensitive. license directory conficts with License file. So License is missing. |
|
After this PR, The files under META-INF are as follows: |
|
Could you raise a pull request to the master branch? |
OK, raise pr to master after this pr is done! To be honest, I'm not very familiar with licenses. Can you please review this? @jerqi @xianjingfeng |
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## branch-0.9 #2246 +/- ##
=================================================
+ Coverage 43.23% 54.53% +11.30%
- Complexity 0 2720 +2720
=================================================
Files 21 406 +385
Lines 2505 21212 +18707
Branches 0 2010 +2010
=================================================
+ Hits 1083 11569 +10486
- Misses 1349 8909 +7560
- Partials 73 734 +661 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
|
Could you display the files in the |
The files under META-INF/licenses are as follows: And The files under META-INF/license are as follows: META-INF/licenses is from licenses-binary. By my debug, META-INF/license (a directory) is from |
|
We should merge them. We can copy the files in the |

What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Fix the issue of license loss
Why are the changes needed?
LICENSE file is missing but license directory which is from grpc-netty-shaded-1.61.1.jar exists.
And when published maven artifacts, I can not close.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No.
How was this patch tested?
test in dev and cluster