There's one discussion in Kylin community about to add binary package in release, people are really would like to have one: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kylin-dev/201508.mbox/%3CCAKmQrOZ_MFUyF_y7HXE7iVMCfJHuuOFuU4T8ibsPWfnw0z2Opw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
For some reason, people (especially in China) is not easy to build from source, since there are many library hosted on some services which can't be access directly. Beyond that, the first impression of a project is how to setup correctly and successfully, it not make sense to have everyone to build from source. And the reality is many projects already DO binary package for convenience purpose. After read so long mail thread here, I have a little bit confusion:-( there are too many messages...should we have some clear guide or practices for such binary release ? Thanks. Best Regards! --------------------- Luke Han On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:50 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > > <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > >>> ...is Apache Brand meant to protect *any* possible object/binary > >>> artifact or only those that PMC actually care about?... > >> > >> IMO any object/binary created from our source code has to be clearly > >> identified as not coming from the ASF. > > > > Well, the real question is: do we aspire to have a monopoly on certain > > binary convenience artifacts? IOW, if a Hadoop PMC blessed and RPM > > as one of those artifacts, does it mean that only that RPM (however > > potentially screwed up it is from the standpoint of Fedora packaging > > guidelines) is the RPM that can be called Hadoop? > > > > That depends. > And what it largely depends on is the product, the PMC producing it, > and the user base. > Some projects have problems with abuse of their marks. People bundling > additional (occasionally malicious) software with the ASF-produced > software. Some of those projects enforce (rightly IMO) trademark to > the benefit of the project and its users. > > Other projects are much more lax with trademarks, yet remain very vibrant. > > Mozilla had similar problems to those that GCC had, which were > described earlier. Linux distributions were patching the 'official' > release, and inadvertently causing problems which ended up giving > Mozilla products an undeserved (at least for those specific issues) > bad reputation. So they rectified this by enforcing their trademarks, > and declaring that any patches had to be approved by Mozilla if you > were to retain the Mozilla brands on the software. Is that overkill > for most of the products that call the ASF home? Probably. But for > some projects, it makes sense. > > (This is completely separate from a discussion about a third-party > using ASF marks for their own gain and confusing folks about the > origin of the software they are using) > > --David > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
