On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23/03/2009 19:34, Paul Davis wrote: >> >> I don't think it'd be a good idea to require until it hits general >> consumption (as in, shows up in package managers). Their build >> procedure is at best, 'interesting'. Also, there's nothing to keep you >> from linking couchjs against a newer version of the library. I haven't >> groked all of the API breakage but there was a report on the list >> awhile back that seemed to indicate that it only involved a minor >> patch. > > Can you specify what's bad about their build procedure? I seem to recall > that a lot of work on that was done in the past few months, and if not, I > think I know who's in charge of it, so I could ask them about it. > > Cheers, > > Dirkjan >
The new method is lots better than the old, but I'm still traumatized by the 1.7 build. I think spidermonkey suffers from trying to be both part of Firefox and an independent library. And for reference, I mean traumatized as in, it took me a good half hour to figure out how to build it. Then a couple hours of wasted work to figure out that I hadn't built a threadsafe version because it built a non-threadsafe (which changes the API) debug version by default. I know that a *lot* of this has been addressed, but it's still not quite a './configure && make && sudo make install" dummy proof build which means that it would turn into a huge stumbling block for lots of people wanting to use CouchDB. HTH, Paul Davis
