Hi,
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Rafael Schloming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Martin Ritchie wrote: > >> I'd agree here. a zip of the build directory is not a binary release. >> > > One of the original design principles of the build system was that the > build directory should be as close as is possible to the binary release. The > idea being that the closer our development environment is to a released > environment, the fewer surprises there will be when we release, and the less > disparity there will be between developer docs and user docs. > I agree with this, though I don't think it's factual as things stand now i.e. there are suprises. Developer docs vs user docs not such an issue here, as we only only have minimal docs about the build content (which don't hold true now everything is in together). > > This principle may have been lost a bit in some of the subsequent > modifications since the inception of the build system, but I still think > it's a good one. So while currently a zip of the build directory might make > a sub-optimal binary release, IMHO it *should* be the case that it makes a > perfectly reasonable binary release. Certainly there should be a very good > reason for each piece of extra scripty magic that you need to run to convert > the build dir to a release dir, since each one of these is a potential > pitfall for our users. (I am yet to be convinced that we currently need > *any* scripty magic.) I'm all for the idea, but it's not where we are just now imho. Perhaps a does of pragmatism here .... > > > If we are interested in doing separate broker and client packages then >> the 'ant release-bin' currently generates a useful package. >> > > Along the same lines as above, IMHO generating separate sub-packages for > distinct pieces of the project should be as simple as identifying the > appropriate subset of files underneath build. > So, what do we need to do to have a binary which is componentised ? Maybe we can capture/share the work out here ? Regards, Marnie > > --Rafael >
