polygene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Merlin <p...@nosphere.org>
Subject Re: Binary relese....
Date Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:49:02 GMT
Hey Niclas,

Niclas Hedhman a écrit :
> Should the binary release (and the output of the build of the source
> release) contain (or not) the exact dependencies used to build the system??
>
> One side of me says; Yes, because that is hard to hunting for if you are
> not a Maven addict.
> And the other says; No, that becomes a too large download, and you still
> don't necesarily get it right since you don't know which jar is needed for
> which library.
>
> Comments?
I don't use binary distributions, only artifacts built locally, from an
in-house proxy or from the interwebs, so the 'maven-repository' way of it.
 
I lean towards smaller downloads but have no strong opinion. What
download scripts do can be done at build time.

The first use case of the -bin dist should be a quick environment setup.

Actual download scripts don't help very much. On one hand, the
dependency information is spread in the -runtime-deps.txt files from the
libs/ dir and, on the other, the actual dependencies sit flat in the
dependencies/ dir.

You almost said it, using this from build systems and IDEs must be a pita :)

For direct usage, picking up jars, the issue could be solved by some
documentation generation. Like a dependency report with
core/libs/exts/tools, or something else?

For tools that supports maven-repositories we could bundle a repository
with the zest artifacts, and another one with all dependencies either
bundled or downloaded. Setup is then pretty easy for a lot of build
systems. But then the picking jars story gets complicated by the tree
layout.

/Paul


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message