On 11 May 2014, at 20:32 , Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote: > Jan has a follow-up item from this week to email the list and clarify > the decision reached in Vienna regarding how we approach supporting > anything beyond the base CouchDB tarball. Strong viewpoints were > presented and I want to be sure everyone is at least aware of the > decision reached, whether everyone agrees or not.
Late reply, but it seems this is important and I forgot all about it. I also can’t recall any discussion, does anyone still know a few pointers to refresh my memory? Best Jan -- > > -Joan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Klaus Trainer" <klaus_trai...@posteo.de> > To: dev@couchdb.apache.org > Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2014 1:28:04 PM > Subject: Re: On the Viability of Erlang Releases and CouchDB > > Thanks Russell for this well-founded writeup! This really helps a lot > in understanding that matter. Your suggestion of making specific > recommendations regarding certain combinations of CouchDB and Erlang/OTP > sounds reasonable in that context. > >> The narrowness of the acceptable releases list is going to cause some >> problems. Debian Wheezy runs R15B01, which as established above, is >> not good to run with unless you have the `+sfwi` patch, and I'm sure >> there are many other distros running R15 and R16B or R16B01. I think >> it would be useful to users to have a set of packages with a proper >> Erlang CouchDB release allowing us to bless specific versions of >> Erlang and bundle it together, but I know this idea goes against the >> recent change in stance on working with distributions, and I don't >> know the ASF stance on this issue well enough to comment on the >> legality of it. That said, it does seem like the logical approach >> until we get a range of stable releases spread out through the >> distros. > > We already do provide binary packages with Erlang/OTP and CouchDB > bundled together (see http://couchdb.apache.org/#download) :) > > Speaking of proper CouchDB OTP-releases: I don't see any conflict (or > potential conflict) regarding "the recent change in stance on working > with distributions". We can both have OTP-releases (finally having them > will be great after all), while still being supportive of distributors > when they want to create their own distribution-specific package.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
