I guess I'm not really sure what the advantage of packaging it at all is. When would a user *ever* use it when downloading a tarball?
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Mark Slee <ms...@facebook.com> wrote: > How about making bootstrap.sh idempotent, so that it doesn't break things > if someone runs it, but the release is already in a state where configure + > make would compile just fine. > > Could be as simple as having boostrap.sh invoke cleanup.sh? > > I agree it's highly annoying that things go wrong when people run > bootstrap.sh, and that definitely warrants fixing. But seems nice not to > require it. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anthony Molinaro [mailto:antho...@alumni.caltech.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:33 PM > To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: bootstrap.sh in tarballs > > +1, you'll also want to get rid of cleanup.sh as that is also misleading > and if you run it, you'd have to bootstrap to get back to a buildable > thrift. > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:56:12PM -0700, Bryan Duxbury wrote: > > What do you guys think of omitting bootstrap.sh from release tarballs? > > People seem super eager to run it, and it breaks things. If we didn't > > include it, then at least they'd *know* they can't run it. > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Anthony Molinaro <antho...@alumni.caltech.edu> >
