On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:03 PM, drew <d...@baseanswers.com> wrote: > Well, for myself, I don't have a problem with the AOO project not having > official binary releases - in such a circumstance I would strongly > prefer no binary release at all.
I wonder who might step into the breach to provide binaries for such a package... > On the other hand if there is a binary release from the AOO project then > I believe it should be treated as a fully endorsed action. At the ASF, the source release is canonical. I have never seen anyone assert that the source release is not offical and endorsed by the ASF. There has been disagreement about whether binaries should be official or not. To the best of my knowledge, every time the matter has come up, the debate has been resolved with a compromise: that while binary releases are not endorsed by the ASF, they may be provided in addition to the source release for the "convenience" of users. What is different with AOO is that the compromise does not seem to satisfy an element within the PPMC and thus the matter is being forced. It would be a lot of hard, time-consuming work for the ASF to build the institutions necessary to provide binary releases that approach the standards our source releases set. (As illustrated by e.g. the challenges of setting up the code signing service.) Not all of us are convinced that it is for the best, either. Marvin Humphrey --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
