I agree strongly with Julian and Taylor's points. Hold the release vote with just the source tar balls and signatures. The convenience binaries should be generated after the vote passes and should be labeled as "convenience binaries" and not "release binaries" on the website.
.. Owen On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:14 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: > To build upon what Julian stated.. > > Apache does not release binaries, it releases source code. Release votes > should always reference the source tarball, git commit, etc., that is being > voted upon. > > That being said, many Apache projects choose to also release "convenience > binaries”, which should be signed by the Release Manager executing the > release. These are not official ASF releases, but should be treated with > the same scrutiny. > > The hard part is that even though “convenience binaries” are not official > ASF releases (i.e. not source code), they *should* be subject to the same > licensing scrutiny. This usually means having a separate LICENSE and NOTICE > files for source and binary releases. > > The LICENSE/NOTICE files *must* accurately represent what is included. > That’s relatively easy for source releases, but gets more complicated with > convenience binaries due to dependencies that need to be accounted for. > > There are a lot of relevant discussions in general@incubator archive, and > a lot of people on that list that are really good at vetting licensing > issues and offering advice. Don’t hesitate to ask questions to mentors or > there. > > -Taylor > > > On Aug 11, 2015, at 9:51 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > In Apache, source releases are much more important than binary > > releases. And binary releases are more trouble, because now you are > > distributing other components that may have non-Apache licenses, and > > you may need to add entries to your NOTICE file (et cetera) to > > accommodate this. > > > > In Calcite we have managed to get by without creating binary releases. > > People seem to be happy to either build from source or use the > > pre-built artifacts. (Admittedly Calcite is a different kind of > > project; most people use it as a library.) > > > > You can probably find lots of discussion & wisdom by searching the > > incubator list and apache web site. > > > > Julian > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Luke Han <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Will try to include binary package in next release. > >> > >> @Mentors, is there any policy about include binary package in release? > >> Or any tips about this? > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> > >> Best Regards! > >> --------------------- > >> > >> Luke Han > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 8:16 AM, 周千昊 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> +1 > >>> It saves the trouble for the users > >>> > >>> alex schufo <[email protected]>于2015年8月12日周三 01:09写道： > >>> > >>>> +1 a binary package should be provided > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Li Yang <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> +1 always releases a binary package will certainly ease users. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Shi, Shaofeng <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> +1 Include the binary package in a sub folder like ³dist² will be > >>> good > >>>>> for > >>>>>> user, otherwise user may confuse on how to run it; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 8/11/15, 8:35 AM, "Luke Han" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Any comments from community? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best Regards! > >>>>>>> --------------------- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Luke Han > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Luke Han <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi community, > >>>>>>>> How do you think to include a binary package in further > >>> release > >>>>>>>> beside source code package? Just for convenience purpose. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Best Regards! > >>>>>>>> --------------------- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Luke Han > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >
