On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:07 PM, kowsik <[email protected]> wrote:
> Contrast this with CouchDB which has huge dependencies external to > itself (the right version of erlang, compiling it with just the right > options, openssl, spidermonkey, etc, etc). Personally, I love the > simplicity of CouchDBX. One click and boom you are up and running. > This is philosophical, but ultimately no matter what software you are > building, if the time to value is going to take a bunch of hoops to > get through, nobody's going to have the patience. > Yep, CouchDBX is great, but it is still a "toy" version of CouchDB. Personally, I rely on build-couchdb. @_jhs and others have added > knowledge into this about OS detection and how best to get couchdb > setup and compiled and started on specific distro's. It implicitly > encodes this knowledge of 'on this OS you have to compile erlang with > these flags' kind of things. > It concerns me that these things are in build-couchdb, and not in CouchDB. The build system is meant to do all of this for you. That is its raison d'etre. Downloading and compiling dependancies, fine. We don't want to be doing that in CouchDB proper. But all of the intelligent CouchDB configuration stuff needs to be pulled up stream. Is that a big component of it? Or is most of the deep magic in place to work around problems configuring our dependancies? Could these things, then, be pushed upstream?
