incubator-couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Cottlehuber <...@jsonified.com>
Subject Re: [REL1.3.0] CouchDB Windows / OS X packages (Progress?)
Date Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:54:22 GMT
On 14 November 2012 19:34, Joan Touzet <joant@atypical.net> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am unable to make today's meeting so I wanted to give a status update.
>
> I've resurrected my work on packaging CouchDB using WiX for Win32. I
> also have recently written new BigCouch wrappers for rpm and deb and am
> happy to help get these done up for CouchDB.
>
> What I'm looking for is an interested committer (dch? tilgovi?) who is
> willing to work with me to help get these patches landed on the tree. My
> goal specifically would be:
>
> 1. Get all of the bits necessary to build packages into the repo,
> possibly using downstream distro bits as a starting point for deb/rpm
>
> 2. Ensure that the bits work
>
> 3. Consult with our downstream distros for any changes they'd like to
> see in our repo directly
>
> 4. profit, etc.
>
> Noah, what is the hard cutoff date for changing the repo? Would there be
> any leeway to change only things that affect the build process/packaging
> instead of the code itself?
>
> -Joan
>
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 07:04:09PM +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
>> Hey guys! What's the current status of the build/packaging work? Would LOVE
>> to get some of this done for 1.3! <g>
>>
>> On 29 October 2012 17:58, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > i can probably help as well. rcouchx is using a simple makefile but that
>> > can be ported to autools imo
>> > On Oct 29, 2012 6:51 PM, "Noah Slater" <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Cooll, appreciate that! Hoping to get some of this sorted for 1.3, which
>> > is
>> > > largely dependant on me fixing up these docs. I think our biggest concern
>> > > right now is the OS X thing. I am not at all happy with it being on
>> > Github,
>> > > but over the moon it exists in the first place. If we could get some
>> > > movement on this, even if it's just a tiny bit, in the right direction,
>> > > then I would be overjoyed.
>> > >
>> > > On 29 October 2012 15:24, Joan Touzet <wohali@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Noah,
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm just climbing out of the hole at work today, so I'll be able to
>> > look
>> > > > at this tomorrow (Tuesday the 30th).
>> > > >
>> > > > -Joan
>> > > > ---
>> > > > Joan Touzet  |  joant@ieee.org  |  wohali@efnet
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On 28 October 2012 11:53, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Hey Hans,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> What changes do we need to make to get this into CouchDB proper?
Do
>> > you
>> > > >> need any assistance?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Thanks!
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On 24 October 2012 23:25, Hans J Schroeder <hs@cloudno.de>
wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> Hi Noah,
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> At my side the required changes are not yet ready.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> - Hans
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> On Oct 23, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> > Just following up on this. CCing Hans and Joan directly.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > On 14 October 2012 19:49, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >>> > Do you think we can get this AMI ready for the 1.3 release?
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > @Hans, do you wanna take a look at what it would take
to fold your
>> > > >>> work in? I'm sure Dave or myself can answer any questions
you run in
>> > to.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > @Joan, how long would the MSI stuff take?
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Dave Cottlehuber <
>> > dch@jsonified.com
>> > >
>> > > >>> wrote:
>> > > >>> > On 14 October 2012 12:27, Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >>> > > Hey,
>> > > >>> > >
>> > > >>> > > This is the first of several "What's up with releasing
1.3?"
>> > emails.
>> > > >>> > > (See subject prefix!)
>> > > >>> > >
>> > > >>> > > I wanted to start a discussion around our Windows
and OS X
>> > packages.
>> > > >>> > >
>> > > >>> > > At the moment, our OS X package is hosted on Github,
which we
>> > need
>> > > >>> to fix.
>> > > >>> > > What can we do to get this package into the source,
and maybe
>> > > >>> iterate on it
>> > > >>> > > a little?
>> > > >>> > >
>> > > >>> > > And are there any improvements we can make to our
Windows package
>> > > >>> for this
>> > > >>> > > release?
>> > > >>> > >
>> > > >>> > > Any volunteers to head up these efforts?
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > Anybody who wants to help here is welcome :-)
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > I am mid updating the public AMI I use for test builds,
to include
>> > an
>> > > >>> > R15B02 OTP instead of the R15B I have. That avoids the
need for
>> > people
>> > > >>> > to spend ages getting a dev environment set up.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > @Wohali has some bits to make an MSI package, better
than my hacky
>> > > >>> > attempts a year ago. That would be cool.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > I'm gonna revert to using a newer OpenSSL library if
it works out
>> > in
>> > > >>> testing.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > Nothing else major comes to mind "down here".
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > A+
>> > > >>> > Dave
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > --
>> > > >>> > NS
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > --
>> > > >>> > NS
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --
>> > > >> NS
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > NS
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> NS
>
> --
> Joan Touzet | joant@atypical.net | wohali everywhere else

Woo!! I can't speak for the unix stuff (other than I'll be delighted
to help test it) but yup I am up for the windows world. Just point me
at it. And give me a day to re-read the WiX book.. Having an MSI as
the default package makes sense to me,  and I will prepare a nuget
package this time around, it seems to be gaining ground:
http://chocolatey.org/, should be straightforward.

Personally I would prefer to roll 1.3.0 soon (timebound) and then give
a period for the new approaches to settle down before they go into git
master. Shipping MSI binaries based off 1.3.0 vs shipping a binary
made directly from 1.3.0 is largely semantics for end users.

If its not a big change and I've done my docs stuff (mea culpa) then
let's do it.

A+
Dave

Mime
View raw message