incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: apache binary distributions
Date Mon, 10 Aug 2015 02:36:38 GMT
On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@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?


?!

No.  The mission of the ASF is to *facilitate* the use and adaptation of
software.



> 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?
>

How is the release policy not clear (
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#distribute-other-artifacts) when it
says:

All releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make changes
> to the software


And then it says

In all such cases, the binary/bytecode package must have the same version
> number as the source release and may only add binary/bytecode files that
> are the result of compiling that version of the source code release.


The Hadoop PMC is utterly free to produce a Hadoop RPM with Hadoop in it
that corresponds to an Apache Hadoop release.  Having project Foo produce a
release of Bar, Baz and Pigdog is pretty far off the reservation, however.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message