commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark R. Diggory" <>
Subject Re: help - multiple location of commons releases
Date Fri, 14 Feb 2003 03:47:57 GMT

Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Jeffrey Dever wrote:

>>And speaking of releases, why in commons do we have two packages for
>>each release, one for source and one for binaries?  These are small
>>components where the biggest thing about them is the generated javadoc
>>which is in both.  I find that people usually download the binary drop
>>and then ask on the mailing list "where is the example code?" which is
>>of course in the source package.

>>Can't we just release one package with everything in it?  In general the
>>only thing that makes a binary a binary is that it has a packaged jar
>>file which is small anyway compared to the source and documentation.
> My vote would be for a distribution build, and a jar. Both downloadable.
> Most of the time I come looking for just the jar, and have to grab lots of
> other things. Sometimes I want the docs, but mainly it is the jar.

I think most people who are using tools like ant or maven get the 
benifit of being able to download dependencies in jar form to be stored 
in their repositories/libraries. Having jars available via the web is 
integral to automating the process of building tools that are dependent 
on other projects.

I regularly use the ibiblio repository to get copies of the various 
apache packages I require, making my distributions much smaller overall 
by not having to distribute the jars in my tar/zip archives.

Having jars makes it possible to distribute a much smaller package with 
build script capable of getting the required jars from the site. Plus, 
if a user already has installed a package, the script can detect it and 
not download the jars for that package. Optimizing on two different 
fronts 1.) the size of my distribution  2.) reducing duplicate jar files 
on my users machines.

So, having Jars is a big +1 in my opinion

> Is there any need to support both tar.gz and .zip? With the exception of
> some minor pain on Apple machines for tar.gz [although I've never had this
> myself], it seems we could ditch one of these distribution mechanisms.
> Hen

These days, most Windows tools that support zip also support tar.gz. 
Most linux/unix distributions support both zip and tar. I'm not sure 
about apple's capabilities when it comes to zip.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message