Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
As for the RC there are many packages created by the build system that
will be deployed on the maven repository if you use the maven deploy
option.
This include the binary jar, the javadoc.jar and source.jar, the pom
and the -site.xml file.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe if we want to publish
them I think we have to vote about their release, too.
If we choose to release only the src dist file, that would be completely
ok. We don't have to release any binary at all. But if we opt to do
that, than we cannot put up other files for download on Apache
infrastructure other than those we voted for.
If the maven artefacts are important to anyone involved, we should stop
the vote and re-start with all artefacts included.
Otherwise with this very vote, we officially release only what's in
http://people.apache.org/~olegk/mime4j-0.4/ now.
That was my understanding too, but in a recent discussion in the httpd
list when I was asking how they dealt with their httpd installer based
on a commercial product Roy T. Fielding replied that they only vote the
src release and any binary created by that source release is the
published without a vote:
http://markmail.org/message/5agseuhdoyu3fh2x
Here is the sentence:
----
Apache projects only release source. The binary installer is just one of
many post-release, binary builds that are created by trusted individuals
and delivered by us in order to make our non-programming users happy.
The ASF does not vote on them (release them), and we don't need them to
be entirely based on open source because the contents are not source.
They just have to be redistributable as binaries under our license.
----
The http binaries are distributed even by www.apache.org:
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/win32/
As very often happens ASF policies are intended differently by different
people, and spreaded differently by different people.
Here is what I found in ASF pages:
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
---
The Apache Software Foundation produces open source software. All
releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make changes
to the software being released. In some cases, binary/bytecode packages
are also produced as a convenience to users that might not have the
appropriate tools to build a compiled version of the source. In all such
cases, the binary/bytecode package must have the same version number as
the source release and may only add binary/bytecode files that are the
result of compiling that version of the source code release.
---
I alse re-read most of this:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice
In some places I read it as ASF *releases* the source package and then
may *distribute* many binaries generated by that source package, and
this would mean that the requirement is to vote for the source release
and the responsibility to publish binary distribution could be left to
individuals, but this is never explained clearly.
Maybe this require a new LEGAL JIRA issue, but I'm reluctant in filing
more stuff now as you can see that 4 over 14 open issues have been
reported by me:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL
I'll note this down, for the moment.
I see Oleg already prepared the staging-repository in his home, so it
will be easier to simply restart the vote (this give me a couple more
days to investigate on the Oracle credit issue :-) ).
In this specific case I would have been happy with the jars uploaded for
review by request as I already checked that the given source zip created
appropriate jars but I wanted to make sure this was ok also in Oleg
environment so I asked.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
