qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Conway <acon...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Qpid M2.1 RC3
Date Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:17:37 GMT

On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 15:06 +0100, Aidan Skinner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Carl Trieloff <cctrieloff@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Aidan Skinner wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Gordon Sim <gsim@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >  There are no distributions of the other languages as we had in M2 for
> > > > example. Is that intentional?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, they were only ever source distributions and it seemed a bit
> > > silly (and error prone as it was an entirely manual process) to
> > > distribute seperate source packages for each one.
> >
> >  That makes no sense, it hurts adoption. Should be not create binaries?
> 
> We've (AFAIK) only ever shipped binaries for Java and .Net (as they
> are platform independent), everything else has been a source release.
> The change from previous versions is that I've not created source
> archives with just the cpp/python/ruby in them, just one big source
> archive with everything.
> 
> If people strongly object I can upload them later, but I think this is
> a saner way to go.
> 
> - Aidan'

It's not about source vs. binaries, it's about buildable vs.
installable. It is not trivial for someone other than a qpid developer
to identify exactly the set of files needed for a working python or ruby
client installation.

It's a lot more friendly to download qpid-ruby.tar which contains
exactly the files required. Even better if you can download a package in
the languages native install format (.gem for ruby, python has something
similar I think.)




Mime
View raw message