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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Dec 1, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Phil Sorber <[email protected]> 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 > > >
