+1 On what Benoit says.

I'll be using the current iteration of this patch to update the couchdb 
rpm spec I've been working on. Additionally, I've opened a dialog with 
the Redhat package maintainer about the possibility of maintaining or 
contributing to this package for RHEL/Centos and Fedora. This can be an 
issue for any distribution package maintainer.

Wendall

On 03/13/2012 09:04 PM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Jason Smith<jhs@iriscouch.com>  wrote:
>> IMHO:
>>
>> It affects advanced users, with multiple JS builds installed. It is
>> not a 1.2.0 blocker. It's not relevant to this discussion.
> It is. If you reread the ticket it appears that the problem is more
> important than expected and I hesitated a lot to let it as blocker
> like it was initially. Since the release have been postponed, we aslo
> have the perfect opportunity to really fix that issue.
>
> Lot of our users are complaining to have some problem installing
> couchdb on their machine. This isn't new. This isn't solved.
>
> While the lazy solution was to direct them to couchbase stuff, or
> these days to build_couchdb or rcouch, I would really prefer we fix
> this *important* issue and let people choose if they prefer to install
> via a vendor or the official *distribution*. Last iteration of the
> patch fix most of the cases I guess. We can choose like said above to
> use this version and fix latest issues in next minor release or trying
> to solve that last one.  At this point, after different iterations,
> feedback is appreciated and that is the main reason why updates of the
> tickets are sent to the ml.
>
>
> - benoit