On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Noah Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 21 Jun 2011, at 17:55, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > >> It would on the contrary conciliate >> both targets and I think can provide an easy way to build a release >> while being more erlangish. > > As I have said before, if we can make the Erlang part of the CouchDB build > more Erlangish, I am all for that, as long as it doesn't reach up into the > rest of the build system and force us to make harmful changes.
OK let's try something around that then. > >> Sorry but no. I've actually a system that work on every platform >> (except for windows right now) without using autotools and >> independently of the platform with all the feature (and more) we have >> in couch. I'm not trivializing this effort at all. But I'm not >> considering it so complicated to achieve. > > Where is the code? I would like to see this system. https://github.com/refuge/rcouch_template > >> Some are yes. And this is a tangential argument. I think the >> opensource project should offer the base to be built everywhere and/or >> ease the work of integrators (ie not binding it to closely to any >> packaging system). > > I agree that we need to be able to package the Erlang part of CouchDB as an > OTP application. Which means that the project, as a whole, will be bound to > GNU Autotools, and, it looks like, rebar. These are standard packaging > systems, and if a downstream distributor cannot work with them, the > downstream distributer has bigger problems to address. > >
