incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From drew <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
Date Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:59:35 GMT
On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 17:01 -0700, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:03 PM, drew <> 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...


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.


ps - sorry if this double posts... 

> > 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:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message