Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8490B4A60 for ; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:34:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 58152 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2011 17:34:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 58111 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2011 17:34:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 58103 invoked by uid 99); 21 Jun 2011 17:34:10 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:34:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO [192.168.133.182]) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username nslater, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:34:10 +0000 Subject: Re: make couchdb more otpish Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Noah Slater In-Reply-To: X-Noah: Awesome Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:34:08 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <26AB081A-E3FE-4038-BB5C-BE57FFA9B4A1@apache.org> References: To: dev@couchdb.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) On 21 Jun 2011, at 17:55, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > It would on the contrary conciliate > both targets and I think can provide an easy way to build a release > while being more erlangish. As I have said before, if we can make the Erlang part of the CouchDB = build more Erlangish, I am all for that, as long as it doesn't reach up = into the rest of the build system and force us to make harmful changes. > Sorry but no. I've actually a system that work on every platform > (except for windows right now) without using autotools and > independently of the platform with all the feature (and more) we have > in couch. I'm not trivializing this effort at all. But I'm not > considering it so complicated to achieve. Where is the code? I would like to see this system. > Some are yes. And this is a tangential argument. I think the > opensource project should offer the base to be built everywhere and/or > ease the work of integrators (ie not binding it to closely to any > packaging system). I agree that we need to be able to package the Erlang part of CouchDB as = an OTP application. Which means that the project, as a whole, will be = bound to GNU Autotools, and, it looks like, rebar. These are standard = packaging systems, and if a downstream distributor cannot work with = them, the downstream distributer has bigger problems to address.