-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Rainer,
On 7/29/13 1:22 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: > On 29.07.2013 17:26, Nicholas Williams wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Christopher Schultz >> <ch...@christopherschultz.net> wrote: > >>>> If it's a resources limitation, I have a publicly-accessible >>>> TeamCity server with an unlimited OpenSource license hosting >>>> Windows 7, Mac OS X SLeopard/Lion/MLion, Debian, RedHat, and >>>> SuSE agents that I would be happy to donate some resources >>>> from. It's not very busy and would have plenty of time to run >>>> CI, SNAPSHOT, and RC builds for all of the platforms. >>> >>> No, the problem is that there are so many different >>> combinations of platform, environment, etc. that it would >>> represent an explosion of options that would never meet >>> everyone's needs. >>> >>> Building mod_jk just isn't that difficult. The only legitimate >>> complaint that I have heard is that most responsible admins >>> don't have a build chain available on a production server. We >>> solve that by building on a test server and pushing the >>> binaries out to our production servers. Others may do other >>> things. >>> >>> I do know that Debian-based distros of Linux can install the >>> "libapache2-mod-jk" package, though it is often out-of-date >>> with respect to the currently-available version. Inexplicably, >>> Red Hat does not provide mod_jk binaries through their package >>> manager. I'm not sure about Suse and others. >> >> Understood. I don't know about others, but SuSE DOES provide >> mod_jk in their package manager. That's how I installed it. Even >> so, it's rarely even close to up-to-date. Usually about a year or >> two behind. > > We had times where we did provide some Linux binaries. Development > for mod_jk has slowed down, many distributions contain a reasonable > version of it and no one in the team is really interested in > providing binaries so it wasn't a priority. It surely is a mixture > of time and technical resources but probably even more we don't > feel it's an important itch to scratch. > > I wouldn't oppose if someone stood up and wanted to provide > binaries, but it should be someone in our web of trust, because we > can't validate binaries we get from outside. So we don't want to > officially distribute contributed binaries. > > If there were such a person, she might happily comeback to your > offer concerning build platforms though the ASF has quite a few > build servers as well. Don't forget about the long internal argument(s) about building on untrusted machines, etc. How far does the ASF trust its contributors to produce binaries? - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJR9tIwAAoJEBzwKT+lPKRYpO4P/RV8qM9aQqua/o2COs6LjOmD 4RyRVTgJBryPHLUQhDkMMrY3oGQnM/SsN6XIfgLa8f3eWbFXIswRcZLGXMFUa0DV gVQmwQXzO9gAZhvggzBO6bhNRY4nAVvff+9XCWrcj395NtUoVn+FuQ/1z5KgXBhT lfO4T9ieAvcAcEp/Kg6if9h97WPnRskqrarqTOt+ckUbjMmne1Bazq6XisHF6zGM cSANl3gx8eDGUWBD6Xi2KB/OWOcFLEARH1k5+9iWgsjRBRXPIaufQlCr8njCDbf+ E7GITkQUokox3VVhXLm3c7ruqaYADq7HEcCWBD3kkdBLIRoQUzj6/imlZVDD8uCq Nhny1FaZMkAi8a9DlIfmDv4zZQlyNp88WpJxE5fZ0aPKVHQNBMBANxXrp7I2Jrp+ LJAMDDd/CDNwM/B04eJGEWHwWBG0pd/EsJBL0IRJlhgiSEAcbfX8O0Re0DaUggnL Zw8l2GuF1VJ0Au9pOHJC8cmvEEhQLatpLiQsnLQ7IGOx4AQesMCdmUeLGxnsNlxT 6oqYCxed4tBDRYNSDdGqvPm63nNEsc3MumHcofKEP+moEyhRpemzvW3AjezA42T1 7BvlwhtS32B0xWpVuGgVLUcuua9DUsCeA1hZxH/N7zqLzK1ANB10o2QiF0NbKuaa W2ZQHV4LVW8NbdDZFvJS =5tHO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
