2015-05-12 13:25 GMT+02:00 Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]>: > On 9 May 2015 at 18:21, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> But the source release isn't in an OS distribution or automated builds. > >>> It's a one-time gold copy. > > so I'm confused as to what you think the source-release ('src') is for. > > and why do you think automated builds are working (repeatedly) off the > > source release code tree? > > With automated build, I meant by anyone using it downstream who for > arbitrary reasons don't want to use the Maven binaries. A good example > is Debian who will store the latest release tar-ball and then build > this in their automated build infrastructure. > > > Repacking for a linux distro is to build once. > > No, distributions build again for each distribution version (at > least). This is done on automatic build systems. > > Example: > > https://packages.debian.org/zh-cn/source/sid/commons-math > includes > > commons-math_2.2.orig.tar.gz > md5 6261d7991154c992477b32b8f3bea18b > > which matches exactly the upstream tar.gz: > > > http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/math/source/commons-math-2.2-src.tar.gz.md5 > > > > "users" here are not > > application writers (they use maven central) but people wanting a gold > copy > > to verify, building thier own binaries. > > And those would often prefer non-proprietary formats.. > > > > Concretely - why isn't a docker build using the maven artifacts? (this > is a > > library, not an application). > > It could just as well do that, yes. Luckily we have GPG signatures also on > the > JARs in Maven Central so they can be checked directly. > > > > > A scan of /dist/ shows no standard practice but one version (zip or > tar.gz) > > is possibly more common that multiple forms. "ant" has three forms. > > I think this should be aligned with what is practice within > Commons projects. Other projects might have different > potential downstream users, e.g. almost nobody compiles > OpenOffice :) > > If Commons in general have just .zip (or .tar.gz) then I'm perfectly > fine with that :). > > If the practice is unclear, than my vote would be to keep both. >
We provide both, zips and tar.gz. Have a look at for example https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/commons/lang/ br, Benedikt > > But I won't block if there is overwhelming support for .zip here.. :) > > > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes > Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 > -- http://people.apache.org/~britter/ http://www.systemoutprintln.de/ http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter http://github.com/britter
