incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: (lack of) couchdb windows binaries
Date Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:32:30 GMT

On 1 Apr 2010, at 11:28, Carl McDade wrote:

> Sorry,
> 
> I forgot to mention that I don't think there should be any Official Release
> of the installer until these issues are fixed. Seperating out some of the
> parts like the erlang binaries would also remove some of the legal headache
> involved in the distribution for Windows.

We already resolved that there is no legal headache.

> In other words while the installer is nice to have, it's just not ready for primetime.

While I agree this is a nice feature, it's a feature, not a blocker.

There are many things in CouchDB that fall in the same category (no 
auto-compaction comes to mind) and don't stop us from making
releases.

That said, if someone offers patches to fixes these issues, I don't
see a reason why we shouldn't include them.

Cheers
Jan
--




> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Carl McDade <carlmcdade@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I have been trying to use the Windows binaries of CouchDB but find that the
>> installer creates issues that never get mentioned. The first concern and one
>> that should be fixed is the distribution and linking of the Erlang binaries
>> in the install. There should always be an option to use the Erlang
>> installation already on the machine. Hard linking the install to the
>> packaged Erlang binaries will almost guarantee non-use of the installer and
>> a subsequent hunt for a way to compile CouchDB seperately.
>> 
>> My second concern is the lack of user defined paths for the installation.
>> This also will cause many to uninstall and wait.
>> 
>> What should be remembered is that Windows users that are installing CouchDB
>> want the same options that they would get when installing an RDMS. If these
>> are not available then they will move on and never give any input so quality
>> assurance is lost.
>> 
>> Hope I did not step on any toes here :)
>> 
>> Carl McDade
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Noah Slater <nslater@me.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On 31 Mar 2010, at 22:36, Mark Hammond wrote:
>>> 
>>>> *sigh* - only a few messages ago in this thread you said:
>>>> 
>>>>> If you're happy preparing the binary, I am happy to call a vote on it.
>>>> 
>>>> I did my end of the bargain, so would it be possible for you to do
>>> yours?
>>> 
>>> No.
>>> 
>>> I know nothing about them, have no way of testing them. Putting my name on
>>> them and putting them up for a vote is something that doesn't interest me
>>> much. I am struggling enough with my free time at the moment, the last thing
>>> I want to do is add yet more work to my plate.
>>> 
>>>>>     * If and only if they are prepared from the source tarball
>>> released as 0.11.0
>>>> 
>>>> They were - the only complication was that the installer build scripts
>>> (ie, the etc/windows directory) is not in the source archive for some reason
>>> I don't understand - however, this only impacts the generation of the
>>> installer itself, *not* the generation of the couchdb binaries.
>>> 
>>> Is the binary artefact prepared directly from the tarball that is
>>> distributed to our users?
>>> 
>>> Or are you preparing it from the source checked out from the repository?
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> ________________________________________
>> Carl McDade
>> Webmaster - Drupal developer - PHP programmer
>> Stockholm Sweden
>> Drupal.se
>> Linkedin.com/drupalse
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ________________________________________
> Carl McDade
> Webmaster - Drupal developer - PHP programmer
> Stockholm Sweden
> Drupal.se
> Linkedin.com/drupalse


Mime
View raw message