If I remember correctly, the RPMs were included as a convenience.  I am ok
with not including them, if someone wants an RPM they are easy enough to
build with the build script.

On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Dan Kirkwood <dang...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd also love to ditch the RPMs,    but I'll abstain from voting since
> it directly impacts me immediately (less work for me!).
>
> Would anyone else like to weigh in on this?
>
> Dan
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Dec 1, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Phil Sorber <sor...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html#basic-facts
> >>
> >> Missing checksums for the artifacts.
> >>
> >> And for the record, I am still not liking the RPM's as release
> artifacts,
> >> but I'll let the IPMC weigh in on that.
> >
> >
> > If I had a vote, now that you have the tar-ball, I’d ditch all he RPMs.
> If someone needs the RPMs, make a Makefile target such that someone can
> produce those source RPMs (shouldn’t they be .srpm) from the tar-ball.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > — Leif
> >
>

Reply via email to