httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: Source in .msi packages
Date Wed, 05 Dec 2001 21:27:08 GMT
From: "Rodent of Unusual Size" <Ken.Coar@Golux.Com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 1:05 PM


> "William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
> > 
> > I meant to say [to be absolutely clear] that the decision
> > was unilateral due to the two 'majority scenarios' below,
> > the interest in conserving absolutely wasted collab donated
> > bandwidth [not to mention our mirror friends], and the last
> > bugaboo I discovered.
> 
> Okey, did this change in our distribution model ever come up
> for discussion on this list?  That's the thread to which I
> would like a pointer..  I haven't found one yet.

No, it was my decision, not discussed, and the entire win32 installer
is always up for discussion.  I've rarely received extensive feedback
on Win32 installer questions, and 0 help.  Based on my active
participation on c.i.w.ms-w. I didn't see this would be too great an
issue.

My #1 goal is to _diminish_ the discrepancies between unix and Win32,
whenever possible.

And the change to the 'new build model' (cvs testing, then tarball
testing [for which win32 .zips are made available,] finally binaries
testing) isn't a good fit for the old packaging schema.

But yes (as you pointed out in the previous message), I've let the docs
in several areas lapse, and perhaps over Christmas vacation I will have
time to give these all a good vetting.  [I think the last comprehensive 
review I did, for that matter, was last Christmas holiday :-]


From: "Rodent of Unusual Size" <Ken.Coar@Golux.Com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 1:31 PM


> "William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
> > 
> > So I started to look at how we distribute source in other
> > binary packages.
> 
> You mean other ASF packages, other open-source packages, or
> specifically the httpd project packages?

Other /dist/httpd/binaries/* distributions.

This is a binary, those are binaries.

> > While reviewing those changes to the 2.0 package, I looked
> > at how we package both 1.3 and 2.0 on Unix.  And I discovered
> > that the inclusion of the src tree was relatively non-existant.
> > The unix httpd binaries were just that (binary).
> 
> Uh?  In <URL:http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/linux/>
> (for instance), *all* of the .tar.gz files contain the source.
> (You can't count how we've done the 2.0 packages because we haven't
> released it yet; in 1.3b days, the main difference between a binary
> and an alpha was that we built and included a binary 'httpd' for the
> former -- but the source was still in the tarball.)

If that's so, I need to review this entire issue once again!!!

> > There is no way to continue to proliferate this.
> 
> Explain that remark, please.. I don't think I understand
> what you mean.

If (1) other binaries did not come with source [I'll be checking this
week] and if (2) Apache 2.0 can't package the sources+binaries due to
the new directory structure (it appears they don't mix well),

then there is no reason to continue the expectation of binaries including
src/ tree on Win32.

If, OTOH, we _do_ consistently include source in 1.3, _or_ we will be
consistently including source in all 2.0 packages, then I need to revisit
and return to creating a -with-src flavor of the win32 installer.  

But I think it's safe to conclude that someone seeking -with-src can follow
directions to first install the .msi installer [which the .exe flavor does
on it's own.]  So there is no need for .msi + .exe flavors of a -with-src
build.  The net package would be a waste of bandwidth, and the .exe flavor
was created soley for non-programmer end-users who just can't follow the
instructions.

Bill



Mime
View raw message