incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ajs6f <aj...@apache.org>
Subject Re: How to review so-called "binary releases"?
Date Wed, 07 Nov 2018 15:29:05 GMT
Another example: for some projects, the most important distribution is via Maven Central. We
can distribute source and binary there, of course, but my guess would be that the vast majority
of consumers are pulling the binaries and linking directly against them, using source distributions
only for UX/UI assistance in their IDEs, and for Apache dependencies they require in an automated
build, maybe not even that.

ajs6f

> On Nov 7, 2018, at 10:23 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi -
> 
> There are some projects where the binary is all the users want. For example, Apache OpenOffice.
In that case these binaries are an exception and while on dist they are not mirrored and instead
we distribute through SourceForge.
> 
> I think if binaries are kept in a separate folder from source then DISCLAIMERs could
be required to be added.
> 
> To move to a new url would be very disruptive. To tell projects that they can no longer
distribute binaries for community convenience would not be a small, reversible change.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Nov 7, 2018, at 5:14 AM, Carlos Santana <csantana23@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Jim
>> 
>> What do you think now?
>> Was that a good or bad thing?
>> 
>> TLDR; I’m in favor of convenient binaries is just the how they are handled. 
>> 
>> Sorry for my brevity, what I meant is that binaries should not be beside next to
the source release seating on the same server and giving the same guarantees for both type
of artifacts (source vs binary).  
>> 
>> Now in terms of convenience :-)
>> ASF should not block a project of making binaries available to their community for
what ever purpose they think appropriate (ie nightly, binary of a RC, binary of final RC)
>> 
>> ASF should provide guidance to the projects to make sure they make their communities
aware that a source artifact is different from a binary artifact. 
>> A project for example can put warnings and bold text on the location (ie directory,
readme, inside the binary, download webpage, wiki etc) where the community downloads a copy
of the binary. 
>> The warning can say this is not a release of the ASF, is just a convenient binary
“download on your own risk”, we provide sha256 sum and maybe the binary is even signed,
but best practice is for you to download the source and be in control of building the binary.

>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - Carlos Santana
>> @csantanapr
>> 
>>> On Nov 7, 2018, at 7:04 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Just a FYI that in the early days of the ASF (and the httpd project), community
binaries were a common offering...
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> 


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


Mime
View raw message