On Apr 23, 2012, at 21:06 , Carlton Gibson wrote: > > > > On 23 Apr 2012, at 20:02, [email protected] wrote: > >> You have no idea happy an easy to install couchedb for osx would make me. >> If we can ultimately make this into an app for free distribution via the >> app store, that would be even better ... is that a remote possibility? >> >> So really this is just a note to encourage those working on couchdbx to say >> that I await it's resurrection with enthusiasm! > > Good encouragement Roger! :-) > >> On 20 April 2012 23:17, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Dave Cottlehuber <[email protected]> >>>> I'll have a whack at this on & off over the weekend. It's the xcode >>>> stuff that scares me so we will make a good team :-) > > How did you get on Dave? > — I didn't get to look at building the couchbase repo again yet. > >>> Here it is: >>> >>> https://github.com/downloads/refuge/rcouch/rcouch-0.5.tar.gz >>> >>> >>> http://benoitc.im/vrac/rcouchx/Screen%20Shot%202012-04-20%20at%2011.55.48%20PM.png >>> >>> see previous mail on how to build it. >>> >>> - benoît > > I loked at this today. I couldn't get to run... > > On 10.8 it runs afoul of the new Gatekeeper feature.
The problem with that is that (afaik) running sub-process is not allowed, which in turn means to compile CouchDB and Erlang and SpiderMonkey and ICU statically into the .app binary. This has been done this for a proof-of-concept iOS distribution before, but it sure isn't pretty. > On my 10.6 box I just got an error. (32 vs 64 bit I guess.) > > I will see if I can build it myself but it looks (equally with the couchbase > repo) to be what we're after. > > > Re. Roger's comments about the App Store: > > It would be awesome to have CouchDBX in the store. As soon as I can get clear > on the whole build process I'd be happy to sign an application for this and > handle submitting it. > > Would it be feasible for the Apache Foundation (CouchDB Branch) to handle > this instead though? I'd prefer that the tools to build a CouchDBX would live with the Apache CouchDB project, but I don't think we want to be responsible for maintaining relationships with the AppStore and producing binaries and updates. > That way the new version of the app would be more secure going forward. — I'd > be happy to maintain it but ideally it wouldn't depend on any one or small > group of developers. This would be interesting to find out, but I'd suggest to not worry about this until we've got some cool software to actually submit :) > 10.8 is going to require a developer certificate signing anyhow so this > question should be addressed. Can you point to more resources about this. AFAIK the signing will be optional and usually useful for end-user apps. Since CouchDBX is more targeted at developers who are more likely to turn the signing feature off or to a lower level, we can avoid dealing with that. Cheers Jan --
