Makming a .deb (or a .rpm) for JBoss means that installs on platforms for which those formats are supoported (or the default) will become much easier. While it is true that the current .zip or .tgz formats are simple to use, some folks simply prefer to have a package (while others will insist on a raw archive or simply build from cvs).
I believe that we can build a .rpm, .deb as well as a .zip and .tgz perhaps even an installer. I also think that we can automate building these, which will cost a small bit to setup, but will buy us wider acceptance to the different needs of different users. I have still to see how this debian stuff would work, but if it does it may mean that every debian install would have trivial acess to getting and running JBoss. While I personally do not run debian, I know many admins who live by it. Giving them an easy mechanism to getting a trully kick ass java application server will mean they will have an easy choice when there engineers demand that they install one for them. Better yet, it may already be installed. A really cool thing about debian is the package system. I have had both positive and negative experences with it, but compaired to the others available it is the best when it comes to getting, installing. updating and removing software from the net. For example, on a minimal debian install you won't have the handy 'more' replacement 'less'. But if you are connected to the net, root (the administrator) can simply 'apt-get install less' and bingo it works. So, if we could get .deb's built. Then a debian admin could simply update the apt config (done once), then 'apt-get install jboss'. Similarly updates, when new releases come out or bugs fixes and such, apt cand upgrade the packages in the same one command fashion. I am do debian advocate, but I think that it is worth investigating a little bit, as it may open up new doors and allow more users/admins in. I think it is worth the time to setup a jboss deb and serve the packages from jboss.org (or sf). I have yet to understand the full logistics for submitting the packages to debian. The advantage to that would be that any debian user could install jboss with no extra config. It remains to be seen that the added work to split off all of the thirdparty bits is worth the effort. It might be easiert to simply ask users to add a line to there apt config and not bother with trying to become part of the debian dist... if that is even possible. Perhaps adam can shed some light on this for me, with out losing me in the debian'isms which he is dealing with. I do no want to create JBoss packages which don't work... actually I would say that is completly unacceptable. If that is going to be the case (or could be the case) when trying to make .debs suitable for debian, then *uck it lets just make .debs based on the current all-in-one archive and provide instauctions on what users need todo to use install them with apt-get. The folks at ximian.com do this, so can we. --jason On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Dain Sundstrom wrote: > I don't think my statement was harsh. I run Debian on some of my servers, > and always wondered why people bitched about Debian. Now I know. > > Also, just because people bitch doesn't make it bad. > > I was voting to not build a DEB, because it appears to take a lot of work to > remove all the dependencies. Instead we build an RPM (not RMP) and include > everything as it is. The point is an easy install for Unix right? Or are we > trying to please the Debian folks? > > As a final not, just because our code is LPGL, has no bearing on the binary > distribution. You can take the code and do what ever you want. > > -dain > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andrew Scherpbier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 6:59 PM > > To: JBoss Development > > Subject: Re: LONG: RE: [JBoss-dev] can't build jboss from cvs > > > > > > Sorry to bud in here, but I think this statement is a little harsh. > > I think these licensing issues that Adam raises are very > > relevant to all > > of the JBoss project! JBoss is licensed under LGPL, right? So does > > JBoss include JAXP? If not, then it certainly shouldn't be > > part of the > > source distribution. If it is, then there are some licensing issues > > that need to be worked out. (You can't just arbitrarily call someone > > elses code licensed under LGPL!) > > > > I assume you meant 'rpm' (Redhat Package Manager). How do > > these issues > > that Adam raises *not* affect any other sort of distribution, > > including > > a windows installer or something like that? > > > > BTW, isn't voting about whether a debian package is allowed > > against the > > LGPL? (Or at least the spirit of LGPL?) I am no licensing > > expert but > > this seems like a weird solution to me and sound to me like you are > > trying to ignore these serious licensing issues. > > > > Dain Sundstrom wrote: > > > > >No wonder people bitch about Debian. > > > > > >I vote we forget the DEB and just build an RMP, which Debian > > can install. > > > > > >-dain > > _______________________________________________ > Jboss-development mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development > _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
