Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:53:43 +0100: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Daniel Shahaf <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 22:24:07 +0100: > >> Conventionally at Apache, the "source release" is canonical and is > >> identical to the tagged source in version control. > > > > FWIW, at Subversion the tagged release and the tarball differ by some > > autogenerated files. ('configure' and SWIG headers are present in the > > tarball but need to be generated when building from the tag) > > Yep :-) > > > I've seen the same discrepancy in build procedure (from svn v. from > > tarball) elsewhere. > > "source release" and "binary release" are just names which allow us to > agree rules and conventions and to express distinctions and > similarities. > > Including resources generated by some process from source means that > the rules for "binary releases" apply, not "source release". This is > useful but confusing and often needs explanation (patches for > documentation gratefully accepted over at legal-discuss). >
Don't call them "binary" releases then, call them "Releases that include files that were machine-generated from other files"? (doing some acrobatics to account for projects that, say, add their generated 'configure' files to revision control) > Using other words, including resources under some licenses in an > aggregate "binary release" shipped is fine but these shouldn't be in > version control when the "source release" is cut. > > Robert
