On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 17:01 -0700, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > 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...
Hi, Well, for a start: IBM stated it will release a free binary version at some point, after shutting down the Symphony product. CS2C, a Chinese firm working in cooperation with Ernest and Young IIRC, releases a binary based on the source code - in fact I'm not even sure AOO supplied binaries are available to most folks in China. Multiracio releases a closed source version of the application for sale in Europe and the US. In the past quite a few Linux distributors included binary releases in their offerings, they consume source not binaries. The current BSD, OS/2 and Solaris ports will go out as source only from AOO, but come to end users from a third party repository, unless I totally missed what was happening there (and I might off ;) There are currently two groups which offer binary versions packaged to run off USB drives, as far as I understand it, they work from source and don't require binaries. Finally this is a well known brand now, it would be hard to believe that if AOO did not release binaries the void would not be filled by others. //drew > > > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
