On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Our mentor(s) are pushing strongly for a source release (which >> contains the upstream patches), plus a "lib" release, which is to be >> overlaid on the source release to allow it to build. > > I wouldn't call it "strongly", rather as just one possible solution > that can be implemented in the short term without significant impact > on the existing codebase. The other alternatives being suggested > seemed quite a bit more complicated. > >> I much preferred a source release and a convenience source+lib release, >> but that caused significant objections, so I gave up. > > My main objection here is that the official source release should be > readily buildable. If the build instructions are essentially "take > that other package and build it instead", then IMHO in practice that > other package is the one that's being released. >
It could still be readily buildable because it can just document how to overlay the lib folder from the source+lib release onto the src only release. In practice probably everyone would just use the source+lib release anyway but so what. > Personally I'd be fine with the source package containing required > binary dependencies, but since others will likely -1 release > candidates like that, I don't see how a convenience package like that > would pass review. > IMHO given that ManifoldCF is a little unusual that makes sense to me too. ...ant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
