|
I think it makes sense to have an end-user version that is stripped of
all the unnecessary stuff, e.g. unused Python packages, pylint,
pychecker, epydoc tests etc. if it reduces our footprint. Do we have
any idea how much space can be saved by doing this? That said, if possibile, I think the end-user version should be identical to the developer versions, except for some missing files. I also think it's useful to have a "debug" version that can be downloaded, i.e. you don't have to build it. I find a significant number of bugs with the debug version, so I assume other people will too -- and building Chandler is too difficult for most people. John Heikki Toivonen wrote: Bug 4743 asks us to add RunChandler scripts to the end user version of Chandler. This means we also need to include python executable and RunPython script. We've already added tools directory to the end user version.Since it seems the end user version is becoming more and more like the developer version I think we should again consider dropping the developer version and just adding all we want in the end user version, making it the one and only Chandler distribution. So it seems we need at least: tools RunChandler etc added in the end user distribution. I think we should also add: pylint, pychecker, epydoc? tests? Note that all of these are needed/used by some of the scripts in tools/. With the end user version people would have the option of editing RunChandler to remove -O argument for Python, which would get them a bit more debugging information than with what comes out of the box. The only thing people would miss are the debug symbols built into the components that were native code (C/C++). My opinion is that people who want this should just build Python etc. themselves, i.e. doing a Chandler full build. Going with one distribution per platform would have several advantages: * Simplify it for the people who come to download Chandler * Simplify it for developers, less need to guess what build/which distribution * Reduce manifest files from 6 to 3 - less work and possibilities of messing up * Reduce work needed by Tinderbox clients - Tbox clients cycle faster * Less space needed on download servers Opinions? |
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
