On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:32:13AM +0100, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > We have previously discussed only having a single source release tar > instead of duplicating the source across multiple archives, this seems to > go further against that grain. Also, what makes the perl bindings get their > own source tar release but not other bindings?
Right now the other language bindings do, in fact, have separate source releases: the python-qpid tarball and the Ruby gemfile (though the latter isn't officially created as of yet, it is still a distinct release artifact from the monolithic C++ codebase). > Being able to generate such an archive and it actually being part of the > release artifacts seem like separate issues to an extent. In taking these separate packages through review on Fedora, the first thing reviewers have asked for is "where can I find the source for this package?" And pointing them to a tarball that is 99% unnecessary and unused by the package seems the wrong answer. In this case we're not really duplicating anything: the perl tarball only those few files needed to do a Perl language bindings release and nothing else. Files that no longer need to be included in the C++ source release. -- Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc. Delivering value year after year. Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
pgpE4ITmPslLN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
