Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of geobmx540@hotmail.com
 designates 65.55.116.29 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <BLU002-W17680B5FD970FABD1B26DDBE4B80@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="_61030626-6ac4-4026-b4d3-945e40323fa0_"
From: Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmail.com>
To: Apache Incubator <general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: RE: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:11:23 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABD8fLVH_Dx4Laom-YkgZttbdGs-VCvx4Aj3Dg=Jicw-epTt6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAP-ksogNw3hy0RrUOBELkShLrdABb5Vhz6Uw6cp-8KFsFTJMNg@mail.gmail.com>,<CAP-ksohHWp4YuCmo32=k0MhnDUON-Dhf2ZBrQaUDq42a9asuCw@mail.gmail.com>,<CAAS6=7jtBppzByUm8+TsVRDocoGMtKU3X854P-HdxrUHLC-JkQ@mail.gmail.com>,<CAP-ksoh+rP+-Yu5FjCb4PhHDV4=Uw0DX-HEmk6hABsZJeDwOnA@mail.gmail.com>,<CAP-ksoh6aSmn3b=dkoDzXvmYYh6KwkdTC=VcF+Eb+fjPvUHXqw@mail.gmail.com>,<CABD8fLWYaNJrWvhPZm9tLXt_hOC=OY3-V+iEAjHdFQtQ8BmgnA@mail.gmail.com>,<CAP-ksojXwqOtz8SLb9YtJWuZDOfOdFnrfdKqTFmiyJAhJtt=VQ@mail.gmail.com>,<CABD8fLVRUXP_Z12+x3DJ_iX4ZfrLCiBGFWTjjOYemiay4=U9ow@mail.gmail.com>,<BLU002-W15873CED2421AA4F7F7D246E4B80@phx.gbl>,<CABD8fLVH_Dx4Laom-YkgZttbdGs-VCvx4Aj3Dg=Jicw-epTt6A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0

--_61030626-6ac4-4026-b4d3-945e40323fa0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Simple enough - thanks.
 > Date: Mon=2C 20 Aug 2012 23:05:00 -0400
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
> From: gstein@gmail.com
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>=20
> On Mon=2C Aug 20=2C 2012 at 10:55 PM=2C Prescott Nasser <geobmx540@hotmai=
l.com> wrote:
> > I'm sorry=2C I'm playing catch-up and I'm a bit unclear on the argument=
 - Marvin said:  "If the podling believes that ASF-endorsed binaries are a =
hard requirement=2C
> > then it seems to me that the ASF is not yet ready for AOO and will not =
be
> > until suitable infrastructure and legal institutions to support binary
> > releases (sterile build machines=2C artifact signing=2C etc) have been =
created
> > and a policy has been endorsed by the Board." Is AOO not able to determ=
ine that for them a binary is a hard requirement for their releases (along =
with source code)? I would think that ASF puts a minimum requirement on wha=
t an official release is=2C not a limit.  Why is there a requirement for sp=
ecial infrustructure? (perhaps that is due to the size of AOO?) Speaking ju=
st from the Lucene.Net persective=2C I would consider our binaries (and nug=
et packages) as official - even if ASF does not specifically allow for "off=
icial releases or officially endourced binaries" - what else would they be?=
 They were built and put up by the same guys releasing the source code.
>=20
> The simplest response is that source releases can be audited by (P)PMC
> members. Binary releases cannot. If they cannot be audited=2C then how
> can the ASF stand behind those releases? How can they state that the
> releases are free of viruses/trojans/etc=2C and that the binary
> precisely matches the compiled/built output of the audited source
> release?
>=20
> That is the first and hardest issue about having the ASF provide
> authenticated binaries.
>=20
> Cheers=2C
> -g
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe=2C e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands=2C e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>=20
 		 	   		  =

--_61030626-6ac4-4026-b4d3-945e40323fa0_--