incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <>
Subject Re: apache binary distributions
Date Fri, 14 Aug 2015 03:58:52 GMT
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Luke Han <> wrote:
> There's one discussion in Kylin community about to add binary
> package in release, people are really would like to have one:
> For some reason, people (especially in China) is not easy
> to build from source, since there are many library hosted on
> some services which can't be access directly.
> Beyond that, the first impression of a project is how to setup
> correctly and successfully, it not make sense to have everyone to
> build from source. And the reality is many projects already DO binary
> package for convenience purpose.
> After read so long mail thread here, I have a little bit confusion:-(
> there are too many messages...should we have some clear
> guide or practices for such binary release ?

Apache produces open source software, and official Apache releases consist of
source code.  Alongside such official releases, projects may offer binary
packages supplied by volunteers which meet certain criteria:

  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.

That's not quite what you asked for in the thread on dev@kylin (embedding a
binary inside a source release) but is it good enough?

Embedding executable binary code inside an official source release is not
OK.  Binary files, though they may be derived from open source, are not open
source themselves and cannot be audited by a PMC.

Marvin Humphrey

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message