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
|