On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 07:47 -0700, Mike Noyes wrote: > On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 13:56 +0300, Andrew wrote: > > 01.10.2010 13:01, Martin Hejl пишет: > > > Am 01.10.2010 11:38, schrieb Andrew: > > >>> So, looking for a different SCM, might be interesting (and > > >>> possibly/probably provide benefits) - but it doesn't address the issue > > >>> that we're not providing sources for binary releases in FRS. > > >> > > >> Source availability requirements are applicable for all versioning > > >> systems, or only for CVS? > > > > > > The page only mentions CVS, but I would assume that this applies to all > > > other versioning systems as well. > > Martin, > As far as I know, your assumption is correct.
Martin, Per SF Staff, you're assumption is correct. > > > I think their point is - source for binary releases must be in FRS. > > > Having it somewhere other than in FRS is not sufficient to meet that > > > requirement. > > This is my understanding also. This is correct. Distributing binaries from CVS or other SCM is against current SF ToS. > > On that page it's mentioned 'FRS or other project resources' - so IMHO > > at least it'll be good to ask about this to SF support - will > > git/svn/etc snapshot meet source availability requirements. > > I'll talk with SF staff next week. A snapshot of our development tree from our SCM will suffice. -- Mike Noyes <mhnoyes at users.sourceforge.net> http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ SF.net Projects: leaf, sourceforge/sitedocs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Virtualization is moving to the mainstream and overtaking non-virtualized environment for deploying applications. Does it make network security easier or more difficult to achieve? Read this whitepaper to separate the two and get a better understanding. http://p.sf.net/sfu/hp-phase2-d2d _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
