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