Thank you for the reply Joan. Let me share this info on the MADlib dev list and see what they have to add.
Regards, Nandish On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Nandish, > > CouchDB's reading of the policy suggests that it needs to be done on > HW controlled by you or the ASF: > > https://apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#owned-controlled-hardware > > As such, we only auto-generate binaries through Apache Jenkins CI, > or directly on developer workstations/VMs (as opposed to Travis CI, > Appveyor, etc.) > > It's also worth mentioning that binaries (such as RPMs), as far as I > understand it, can't be considered official Apache release artefacts: > > https://apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#compiled-packages > > In an age where binary distribution is the predominant method of > software consumption, and JAR file distribution has been the norm > for Java-based pacakges for ages, I wonder if it's worth revisiting > this policy. > > -Joan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nandish Jayaram" <njaya...@pivotal.io> > To: dev@community.apache.org > Sent: Wednesday, 1 November, 2017 1:52:15 PM > Subject: Building release artifacts for an Apache project on docker > container > > Hi All, > > The Apache MADlib team is working on creating CI pipelines, and we > wanted to know if there are any Apache mandates for where the release > artifacts must be built? > > We have a CI pipeline which builds the rpm on a docker container. Can > this rpm be released as is, or should we only release artifacts built on > physical machines? > > Thanks, > MADlib team > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > >
