incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Binary Downloads
Date Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:08:19 GMT
I agree we should be supply binary downloads but I'm not comfortable
with using commercial third parties. Are there ASF rules on this?

B.


On 3 November 2011 11:35, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I think we should start considering providing binary downloads for our users.
>
> The whole topic is a bit of a mess (see below), so I'd propose to start small.
>
> 1. This first iteration are links from couchdb.apache.org that are clearly
>   marked as "unofficial 3rd party binary downloads" that are not hosted on
>   ASF infrastructure.
>
> 2. Start with popular platforms.
>
> 3. Use the build-couchdb* script to create a fully self-contained directory with
>   CouchDB and all its dependencies in one place that can be rm -rf'd for
>   uninstalling.
>
> * https://github.com/iriscouch/build-couchdb
>
>
> The above circumvents several things that I hope we can resolve later, but that
> I don't consider blocking us from getting the above started.
>
> A. Official ASF releases. Of course, ideally, we should provide official ASF
>   binary releases, but I acknowledge that with a small community, we may have
>   trouble getting votes and testing for all popular platforms together.
>
>   The nice thing of the proposal above though is, that we can, at any time
>   promote an unofficial build to an official one by voting on it and changing
>   it's label on the downloads page.
>
> B. There's many target platforms our users work with and we can't possibly try
>   to service them all at once. We can grow this operation as we get volunteers
>   to help out with each platform.
>
>   The nice thing here is that we can help a significant portion of users with
>   relatively little effort.
>
> C. Using existing package managers. There are many advantages to use official
>   package managers for system installation and they should in fact be the
>   preferred way to set up a system, but they tend to be a little bit behind
>   with current releases.
>
>   I'd be super happy to also work with existing package managers to improve
>   the situation there, but I consider this to be outside of the scope of this
>   discussion.
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
>
>

Mime
View raw message