Giuseppe Maxia wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brian Aker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi! >> >> On Aug 17, 2008, at 12:40 PM, Giuseppe Maxia wrote: >> >>> first step, i.e. to build a binary tarball, and to manually create a >> Just to be forward, you are not planning on publishing the binaries just yet >> right? I would prefer that you do not because I do not want folks to have an >> expectation of support yet. > > > I don't want to distribute anything. I would like to be able to create > a tarball with little effort.
This should be not too hard to do. At the moment, I'd say the _easiest_ way would be: ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/drizzle make DESTDIR=drizzle-7.0.0 make install mv drizzle-7.0.0/usr/local/drizzle/* drizzle-7.0.0 rm -rf drizzle-7.0.0/usr tar cvfz drizzle-7.0.0.tar.gz drizzle-7.0.0 This will install drizzle compiled for /usr/local/drizzle into drizzle-7.0.0/usr/local/drizzle. We can eventually add a target that does this more easily into the Makefile... >>> * the replacement for drizzled_safe (which is currently badly broken). >>> Monty said something about creating an angel, but I don't know the >>> time frame; >> My take on this, is that it should be fixed. From what Monty has told me it >> has blossomed in recent years in size. I am wondering if we would not have >> more luck with an older version or if I should just ask Yazz or someone else >> to build us a new one quickly. >> I think I fixed this already ... > >>> * a script to create standard binary tarballs (I did something that >>> works for me and I can push it into a tree unless there are already >>> plans to do it in some specific way); >> I might be interested in seeing this in the Makefile, though there is a >> strong argument that tarball binaries are the way of the dodo. I keep "make >> rpm" in my other projects because I find it to be useful. I am wondering if >> tarballs are the same. >> > > tarballs may not be important for you, but they are very much > important for me, and for many testers. Having a tarball is the basis > for a unified binary distribution that can be installed (manually or > automatically) on any Unix platform. > Tarballs should note be the primary means of installation, but it > should be available on every platform as a basis for side > installations. I also see lots of people using them as an easy way of upgrading. They keep a /usr/local/mysql symlink that points to the "installed" version of mysql, so that "upgrading" means unpacking a new tarball, then shutting down, swapping symlink, and starting back up. I think this in production is largely a symptom of packages that don't do what people want... but that's a much larger issue. There are also those people who just don't like system packages. But I agree... these should not be a primary delivery mechanism... and I'm not sure we should even distribute them if they're easy to make. >>> * instructions to compile drizzle with static libraries; >> This will never work. Static built binaries are dodos at this point. There >> have been excellent articles written on this in recent time. >> > > Dynamic builds are sometimes a nightmare to align with dependencies on > different flavors of Linux. I hear this... but perhaps if compiling and making a binary tarball isn't as painful as it is now, it wouldn't be as bad to make a binary tarball for a specific box... >>> * instructions to start replication with drizzle (if it is currently >>> possible). >> I think it is broken, and I believe we should fix it :) >> > > Thanks > > >> Cheers, >> -Brian >> > > Cheers > > Giuseppe > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
