On 9 July 2012 12:31, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 12:25 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> I am discussing the relationship of SRPMs and RPMs, which is a valid
>> point on this thread given the point that the RPMs and SRPMs have been
>> mismatched for some time and that the current process calls for manual
>> rather than automatic synchronisation.
>
> Which SRPMs are you talking about? Community SRPMs? If so, they have
> been always available on the website. If you are talking about OpenSCG
> RPMs, that is a different thing.
My words were a little unclear all round, please accept my apologies.
IMHO we should only list binaries on the postgresql.org website if
they are derived from build information that is owned by the PGDG, or
at very least publicly available at the time of the build and likely
to remain so afterwards. That process should be automatic as far as
possible, to minimise error, since the number of users of those
binaries is now very large.
Unverifiable binaries are a quality and security risk to the project.
Companies are welcome to provide value-added binaries to their
customers if they choose to do so but that should be a private matter.
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services