On 18/03/2008, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >
Is this documented anywhere? > > 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. And where are these rules defined? > 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
