On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 6:59 AM Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 15, 2018, at 2:41 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > > <bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote: > > > > > > I see this as a two-level thing: > > > > a) The source release is an Act of the Foundation, it is what the > > foundation produces > > > > b) For the binaries, the PMC states that it thinks they are good and > > declares that the published digests and signatures are the correct > > ones. The Foundation does not state anything about them - use at your > > own risk but in practice that risk is very low if the PMC members > > collectively recommend using them. > > > > That's not very different from what other open source projects do - we > > need a) for our legal shield but b) is exactly like random open source > > projects operate. > > > > You have to trust an open source project when you use their binaries, > > and you can use digests and signatures to verify that those binaries > > are the same that everyone else uses - I don't think anyone provides > > more guarantees than that, except when you pay for someone to state > > that those binaries are good. > > > > If people agree with this view we might need to explain this better, > > "unofficial" does not mean much, this two-level view might be more > > useful. > > Agree 100%. Thx for very clearly and accurately describing all this.
+1 to this as well. In fact, I love it so much that I'd like to have it published as part of our official guide: http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#compiled-packages Any objections? Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
