Jason van Zyl ha scritto: > > On 14 Jun 07, at 10:36 AM 14 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote: > >> I'm not talking about what our users do, I'm talking about what the >> ASF policy seems to be >> > > Ask five people and you'll get five different answers. > > Bottom line is who cares, I'll keep adapting to what people think is > necessary and we'll feed it back into the system.
I have some statistic of downloads for Apache JAMES Server (email server). We distribute both binary and source distributions: 2,584 binary.zip 589 binary.tar.gz ----- 3,173 466 source.zip 118 source.tar.gz 343 sdksource.zip 164 source-withcontainer.zip ----- 1,091 So it seems 25% of all downloads were source distribution. It is not maven, but maybe this help your choices. Furthermore I created a maven skin for apache james including code for Google Analytics, and expecially including special code so that links to package downloads to mirror sites are monitored on the onClick and added to statistics. if you are interested see the final part of this file: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/james/project/trunk/maven-skin/src/main/resources/META-INF/maven/site.vm?revision=532445&view=markup Stefano >> On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> On 14 Jun 07, at 9:39 AM 14 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote: >>> >>> > that's what I understood too, source release is mandatory and >>> > binary optional >>> > >>> >>> This is a throwback to HTTPD where a source distribution made more >>> sense because of platform issues. I'm willing to bet 99.9999% of >>> users don't build from sources and take the binaries. Of course it's >>> important to have the sources available but in all practical terms >>> most users will never use them. >>> >>> > On 6/14/07, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >> On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > We've never had one, but I can certainly make one by exporting the >>> >> > tag and zipping it up. All the source archives to date are >>> >> simply the >>> >> > source as record, they don't include anything in there to build >>> >> them. >>> >> > I don't think this is useful at all to anyone but if it's a legal >>> >> > requirement to have a buildable-from-source distribution it will >>> >> take >>> >> > me a few minutes to make it. I'm not sure Maven SCM supports and >>> >> > export that would work and I'm certainly not going to mess around >>> >> > with that at this stage to put in the build. But if we want to give >>> >> > people what I actually used to build the release then the tag >>> >> should >>> >> > be exported and zipped up. >>> >> >>> >> I did that (svn export and zip) for Archiva 0.9-alpha-2, but I had to >>> >> add LICENSE and NOTICE because they were not in svn. For Struts I >>> >> use >>> >> the assembly plugin to piece together the same thing you get with svn >>> >> export. >>> >> >>> >> Anyway, I don't think it's a legal requirement so much as it's "what >>> >> we do". I mentioned it when I cleaned up the /dist/maven directory, >>> >> and Henri commented on it then but we never finished the discussion. >>> >> >>> >> The release FAQ is as close to ASF "policy" as we've got: >>> >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html >>> >> >>> >> "The Apache Software Foundation produces open source software. All >>> >> releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make >>> >> changes to the software being released. In some cases, binary/ >>> >> bytecode >>> >> packages are also produced as a convenience to users that might not >>> >> have the appropriate tools to build a compiled version of the source. >>> >> ..." >>> >> >>> >> There's a similar conversation happening on commons-dev: >>> >> http://www.nabble.com/-all--What-is-a-release--WAS%3A--vote-- >>> >> releasing-jci-RC3-as-1.0-...maybe-this-time--t3898124.html#a11050531 >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Wendy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
