On 8/16/12 3 :32PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > > >On 8/16/12 10:19 AM, "Carol Frampton" <cfram...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 8/16/12 12 :38PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/16/12 6:11 AM, "Carol Frampton" <cfram...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> This is not the topic of this thread but I think the release manager >>>>has >>>> to be able to produce both packages. >>>> >>>> Carol >>>> >>> Interesting issue. Theoretically we only release source so I don't see >>>how >>> you would need something platform specific. The binary convenience >>> packages >>> are not official so if you only have one computer, it should be "ok" to >>> have >>> someone supply the other platform's bin-kit. >> >> It matters for the installer since 99% of the people who want it are >>after >> the binaries and aren't interested in the building source (which now >>will >> include getting a certificate.p12 file). >> >> Carol >> >I understand the installer needs a Mac binary and a Win binary, but since >they are not official releases, I don't see why the release manager can't >ask someone else to build a package for them. I would think the release manager should not sign "the apache way" a binary or a binary distro with a binary in it that they didn't build. Everything on the distro site needs to be signed. I did not sign the asdoc package when we released and I was asked not too long ago, I think by someone from infra, to do that. Maybe the mentors know the real answer to this. Carol
