Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALhtWkdOXOq_BnN0RrSBQjbwkge+ZHUSpTuqxMb3joMni6GNwA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAPaJBx5NQb_D4XO4wi+S2J8Jy5K9bGVe2AFm6F1JMH33A+r+dg@mail.gmail.com>
	<508E3DBB.5060207@holeczek.de>
	<CALhtWkdOXOq_BnN0RrSBQjbwkge+ZHUSpTuqxMb3joMni6GNwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:41:19 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAAS6=7heAfuWSGafCB4SGvic2tT2-BdLhaP2g3D3iBbstLR4pA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Shipping binary file in CloudStack release
From: Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, it's no more good (or bad) than shipping a .tar.bz2 of
> some category A open source code (given the license).

+1

>From your description, this is different from a compiled object file, it's
compressed source.  No information is lost, it's just obfuscated and can be
restored.  It's a little annoying as would be releasing source transformed via
rot-13, but it's still source IMO.

> It would be more better, I suppose, to grab the corresponding source
> tree and run their build script as part of your build script, but I'm
> a bit puzzled as to whether this, as is, is actually a problem.

Doesn't seem like a blocker to me, so long as people have expanded the archive
and are happy with what's inside.

Marvin Humphrey

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org