On Nov 3, 2011, at 13:08 , Robert Newson wrote: > I agree we should be supply binary downloads but I'm not comfortable > with using commercial third parties. Are there ASF rules on this?
I wasn't thinking of any commercial third parties here. Just archives files the community can provide that are made with build-couchdb for different platforms. Cheers Jan -- > > 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 >> -- >> >>
