commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Costin Manolache <cmanola...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Commons-Logging 1.0.3 Released
Date Tue, 08 Apr 2003 04:17:46 GMT
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> 
>> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 22:59:30 +0100
>> From: robert burrell donkin <rdonkin@apache.org>
>> Reply-To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
>> <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
>> <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org> Cc: community@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Commons-Logging 1.0.3 Released
>>
>>
>> On Monday, April 7, 2003, at 10:20 PM, Costin Manolache wrote:
>>
>> > Could you also upload the jars, in the binary directory ? It would
>> > simplify
>> > the life of those who want to automatically download dependencies.
>>
> 
> I think this would be a backwards-incompatible change in the release
> policy (if it replaced the existing distros that include the Javadocs).

What do you mean "backards incompatible change" ? It doesn't replace
anything - I just asked for the .jar binaries to be distributed as well. 
Apache httpd is distributed as .msi installer and precompiled on dozens
of platforms. That doesn't replace the official distro, just helps in some
use cases.

The binary directory in the /dist is supposed to be used for binary
distributions. And .jar is just one binary distribution. 

It would be perfectly normal IMHO to distribute for example a 
binary .jar compiled with symbols for debugging and one without. OR a binary 
built on JDK1.4 and one built on JDK1.1 ( if it would make any difference).
All binaries are just artifacts intended to simplify the life of the users.


> It would also be redundant with the fact that people will check the JAR
> file into their favorite download repository (ibiblio or whatever) anyway,
> so what's the point of doing so here as well?

Quite the oposite - it'll provide a place where people can find the original
.jar, as checked in by the release manager of the project. ( instead of
ibiblio or "whatever" ). If someone wants to check the jar anywhere else -
that's fine, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't release it from apache
because some other repositories may want to distribute it as well.

Again - this is just about making available binaries that are very usefull
from the location where they are supposed to be available - apache dist.
( which we get by downloading the .tgz and then extracting the .jar in
tomcat - quite inefficient ). It has nothing to do with what other people
are releasing and how. Getting the .jar is a valid use case and it is 
obviously a binary. Some project distribute .dlls and .so files, as well
as .exe and many other binary artifacts. 


Costin




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message