Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of elecharny@gmail.com
 designates 72.14.220.158 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=Q4pSxW46fFXb6mbyrx/rxE7EAdagOJbXnoAZ90+Xx107AWMXp8uin2R1hM9NX8hjgy
         oHrevN4U4Tqjh0JHZSZnebeBWPHRdwOTo/Sy6vULO73d/uazS1eT7wFfhbLVgPy4by8s
         QDbdi2RnOnRnYDX6tsIyVFXsk7EzYk4wOot0Y=
Message-ID: <487A76BB.5010705@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:42:19 +0200
From: Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [Installers] Some thoughts regarding better organization for
 installers
References: <a32f6b020807131246lea1a00che6f1e7209f4144f0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <487A70B1.5020202@gmail.com>
 <a32f6b020807131421l3b27815fv2bc9dcf87d19f0ef@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a32f6b020807131421l3b27815fv2bc9dcf87d19f0ef@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>   
>> Alex Karasulu wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Was just looking at the installers project during release and I got some
>>> ideas.
>>>
>>> (1) Perhaps we should break apart this big apacheds module under it into
>>> separate installers for:
>>>      o server-installer (apacheds module)
>>>      o studio-installer (studio module)
>>>      o suite-installer (suite module)
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> Perhaps we should simply remove the last two installers, and keep only the
>> ADS installer.
>>     
>
>
> Why remove them (especially the studio one)?  These installers are not in
> the ApacheDS top project.  The installers project is standalone for managing
> all our installers.
>   
Because Studio already has all the needed installers ?
>
>   
>>  (2) Fix suite installer so it no longer needs to pull installer from a
>>     
>>> website? Is this even worth doing?
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> I think we can doom the suite installer. It does not make a lot of sense
>> anyway, now that we have ADS embedded into Studio.
>>
>>     
>
> I like the suite installer because it allows for an ApacheDS formal
> installation in addition to having it available to start via Studio.  But
> you might be right about this.  Wonder what others thinking as well.
>   
Yeah, me too. Guys ?