On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Yasha Karant wrote: > > I don't and haven't 'publish' binaries for a long time now,
> Although you evidently are not a "repo", are you willing to > allow others access to the built RPMs (not SRPMs) needed for > an executable install of abiword? The RPMs I have are all > 2.x, nothing in 3.x . Are there any "conflicts" between > what is needed by a more recent abiword and the standard > install (from SL/CentOS, EPEL, ElRepo repos)? That is, > package M conflicts with whatever during the binary install? Long ago and far away, with the pre-cursor product to CentOS (cAos), I built and released binaries. With the turn-down of RHL, and the rise of the 'Enterprise' distributions, I spent some time considering 'policy' as to releasing sources vs. binaries, and concluded that there were obligations to 'stand behind' binaries, which did not arise with a simple set of related sources. Unless one is a commercial customer of Owl River, binaries are not available ( contrariwise, all binaries installed at any customer are backed by availability of sources at the site previously indicated, thus satisfying GPL and related 'source availability' obligations ) so, thus, my earlier mention of poking EPEL > I could attempt to put personnel (grad students, undergrads) > on the build, but I really do have higher priority work for > these persons. I myself do not have the spare time right > now to contribute much to the porting effort of a standard > "office enduser" package. And wonderfully, in the FOSS ethic, EPEL should solve this for all of us with any luck -- Russ herrold
