On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Ryan Ramage <ryan.ram...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm +1 on the idea to have "official binaries" > > What is your feeling on having "unofficial binaries" listed until the > full ability to get official binaries? I think there maybe some > urgency to get a download page. Once that is going, that will provide > some time to work on proper binaries. As Jan put it: > >> 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. > > > >> but I really dislike the idea to have to use build-couchdb for that. Or any >> system that use rakes, ruby, python .... > > For the "unofficial binaries" I don't think we should limit how they > are built. Build-couchdb does not build windows yet. I am sure we will > have to pull from Dave's work for the windows build. All the end user > cares about is that it runs. They don't care how it was built. > > That being said, I would propose that to submit a "unofficial binary", > a documented build process should be provided. An end user may not > care about how it was built, but the couch community will. >
Maybe indeed linking to an unofficial page could do the trink. with glazier for windows. While we are here would also link to rebared couchdb maintained by refuge. The last one could happen this weekend. After discussing with some at EUC it appears there are some interest for it. But I wouldn't stop to that. I think starting to work on this toolchain would be pretty interresting. That's too bad that I can't attend to the couchack finally , would have enjoy to talk with dave about that ... but maybe that could be done online. - benoit
