On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Christopher Lenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 18.03.2008, at 22:06, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:40 PM, Christopher Lenz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> I wonder because with CouchDB, source tarballs are created through > >> the > >> GNU-Autotools based build process, rather than being a raw `svn > >> export` of the release tag. We don't keep the auto*-generated > >> configure/make files in the repository (they are generated files > >> after > >> all), but do include them in source tarballs to limit build-time > >> dependencies and make the build process easier for the user. > >> > >> I guess we could start checking in the generating build files into > >> SVN > >> if that's required. But maybe you can back that statement up a bit > >> before we do so? > > > > lots of binary distributions at apache contain source. this makes them > > binary distributions containing source, not source distributions. > > Maybe I didn't explain properly… our previous (pre-incubation) source > distributions did not contain any binaries, only source. The > difference between the tarballs and a source control checkout is that > the former has some generated build scripts. yes: you explained that quite well the first time any distribution containing stuff which isn't in subversion is by definition a binary distribution Looking into the HTTPD repos and comparing to the HTTPD source > tarballs, they appear to be doing the same thing: there's a > "configure" file in the source tarball, but not in the repos. In > general I'd say this is common practice for any project based on > Autotools. IMHO it's not worth getting into arguments about HTTPD current verses original/best practice yes, it's common practice but it's important to distinguish terminology from presentation. what a source distribution means is a direct export from subversion. it's fine to create a distribution containing generated stuff; call it what you will; recommend it to users who want to build from source. still counts as a binary as far as rules and whatnot go. there is a slight possibility that fans of source distribution may complain if you don't issue a source distribution. IMHO if that's the case then that's the time to present your arguments. till then, it's just terminology. [snip] > > source distributions (svn exports) are aimed at developers so they can > > create accurate diffs and contribute patches, not users. they are also > > useful for downstream distributors who want to be able to accurately > > and > > selectively apply patches. these groups should be able to build in > > the same > > way committers do so they don't really need it easy. binary > > distributions > > are for users, source distributions for developers. > > > The generated source tarballs don't in anyway prevent developers from > providing good patches. They contain the source plus some build files > pre-generated for convenience (which can be regenerated from the very > same tarballs nonetheless). IMHO it's best to avoid getting into this kind of argument: it's just terminology Also, again similar to HTTPD, the source tarball is actually the main > distribution for users, too (except the Windows camp, which we don't > support yet anyway). that's fine - robert
