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 <[email protected]> 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 > -- > >
