> Binary installers are not completely supported unless the
> maintainer documents the process they used to build the
> installer. We want to make it easy for someone else to step
> in if a maintainer stops maintaining the installers. So this
> is a criteria for full acceptance from the OCT.
Just seen this. So, anybody suspicious here? I don't know if that's directed towards P/O... It seems we've got an excellent reputation For clarity: The P/O installer is completely GPLed and _does_ include all of its sources and a "howto" document that explains how to build the installer.
Are there any volunteer for preparing an installer with the newest DotLrn version?
There is actually a new version of the installer coming out with P/O Beta8 probably tomorrow, which includes improved documentation and some tests to see if port 80 is free, whether there is already PG running and whether CygWin is already installed. These were the most frequent causes for installation errors in the past.
Finally some statistics: We had about 700 downloads of the "AlphaX versions since November and there were 54 installations of the "Beta5" and "Beta7" versions in the last three weeks.