On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:12:35AM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >... > > sourcecode under its own license. Yes, binary, but it is the best first > > step and it solves a real need. > > Just to play devils advocate, what is that need, Given that there current > is a repository distributing ASF binaries with their license. > > This is not a facetious comment, but a desire to explore what the need is > for an ASF-blessed repository.
The ASF doesn't "need" to have a repository. But it cannot operate or condone a repository that has or allows license violations. The ASF is primarily concerned with the original, authoritative distribution of its code. For proper authenticity, security, mirroring, etc, that distribution has a set of requirements and policy which has been defined by the infrastructure team. Beyond the original distribution, then it's all gravy. What facilities do we want to provide our users and downstream developers? How can we simplify their lives? Ted points out that it is reasonable to state that the ASF is creating problems (classpath and whatnot), so maybe you could even say we "must" create a repos simply as a way to help recover from the mess that we have made. *shrug* It does seem like people are narrowing in on some proposals, designs, etc. I might suggest it is about time to Wiki-ize the current thoughts so that you have something concrete to reference in further mailing list discussion. And to iterate on or to provide some alternatives. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
