On 21 Jun 2011, at 17:55, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > It would on the contrary conciliate > both targets and I think can provide an easy way to build a release > while being more erlangish.
As I have said before, if we can make the Erlang part of the CouchDB build more Erlangish, I am all for that, as long as it doesn't reach up into the rest of the build system and force us to make harmful changes. > Sorry but no. I've actually a system that work on every platform > (except for windows right now) without using autotools and > independently of the platform with all the feature (and more) we have > in couch. I'm not trivializing this effort at all. But I'm not > considering it so complicated to achieve. Where is the code? I would like to see this system. > Some are yes. And this is a tangential argument. I think the > opensource project should offer the base to be built everywhere and/or > ease the work of integrators (ie not binding it to closely to any > packaging system). I agree that we need to be able to package the Erlang part of CouchDB as an OTP application. Which means that the project, as a whole, will be bound to GNU Autotools, and, it looks like, rebar. These are standard packaging systems, and if a downstream distributor cannot work with them, the downstream distributer has bigger problems to address.
