On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 16:55 +0100, sebb wrote: > On 29 June 2014 15:59, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 15:27 +0100, sebb wrote: > >> On 29 June 2014 15:15, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > >
... > >> > > >> > What we release is a source tarball. Binary artifacts are distributed > >> > merely for convenience of users. > >> > >> Yes, they are optional. > >> > > > > Ah, finally. So are website or any reports. > > The website is not really optional as far as consumers are concerned, > but is not generally subject to a release vote. > However there are still some rules (e.g. branding) which the site must follow. > > The reports are not strictly needed for consumers, although the Clirr > one may be useful. > However, some of the are important for the purpose of the release vote. > So, they can be and should be built from source. > >> But they are still distributions, and still need to follow the rules > >> regarding NOTICE and LICENSE etc. > >> And sigs/hashes must be OK > >> ETC. > >> > > > > Yes, by making sure that the correct artifacts can be built from source. > > No (*). > > Assuming that the RM intends to publish the binary jars to Maven and > the binary bundle to the ASF mirrors, then these are distributions. As > such they must meet the requirements. > > For example the ASF does not allow bundling of 3rd party code that is > not compatible with the AL2.0. This is to ensure consumers can be sure > that the downloads we provide are available under the AL2.0 license. > > (*) ensuring that the artefacts can be built from source is a separate issue. > No. Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
