Doug Cutting wrote:
Patrick Hunt wrote:
I tried installing "yajl-ruby" using gem and that failed as "mkmf" was
not available. It seems that there is also a requirement that
"ruby-dev" be installed, not just ruby. You might save some hassle by
putting that in the readme at the same time as fixing the typo.
README would definitely help, at least avail if someone cares enough.
I filed an issue for these changes.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AVRO-427
However it seems to me that either the "conveniences" are part of the
official release or not (this should be made explicit when calling the
vote). If not then we should not be considering them as part of the vote.
Technically, what the ASF releases is source code. So, when you vote on
any release you're voting on its source code, not associated binaries,
etc. Still, many folks are unaware of this, and Avro's new release
structure is different than most, so I probably should have mentioned
that the primary thing to vote on is the src tarball. We also want the
other artifacts to be correct and useful, of course, but we can, e.g.,
add more binary artifacts after the release is out, but we should never
change the released sources.
Apache HTTPD puts docs, binaries, etc. in subtrees:
http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/
I'd rather we consolidate releases in a single directory. But maybe we
ought to move each language to a separate subdir, to make this clearer?
So we'd just have the source tarball in the top-level, and then have
py, ruby, cpp, c, and java subdirectories. Thoughts?
What you are saying sounds reasonable to me and the changes you've
suggested should go a long way. Having a toplevel avro src archive and
README, with a subdirectory to store the conveniences also sounds good.
Btw, I noticed that the convenience archives have ".svn" subdirectories
in them (I looked at avro-c) containing all the svn info. You might want
to exclude these when doing the pkging.
Patrick
