Can I suggest a little experiment? Grab the next person you can with similar Linux/C++ skill level to me and see if they can follow the instructions. Repeat. Feedback until the build instructions could be followed by a chimp. Thats the sort of open source that I like to use.
Rupert On 2/13/07, Rupert Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well I was already told that having an all-in-one would be better in the previous thread where I asked about it. Also I did a build from a source distribution and I had to upgrade a lot more tools (on RH3) than were mentioned in the building from source dist instruction. I tried to make this clear in the instructions by saying: Building from a source distribution: You do not require: * autoconf * automake * JDK 5.0 I had to upgrade *everything* else on RH3 to do a build. In fact it was complicated enough, that I just did a complete build from a checkout anyway. I don't think the current README-dist instructions are anywhere near complete enough to follow. All in one file has the advantage of files not getting out of sync with each other; I pointed out a dependency version conflict between the existing files. Up to you C++ guys to decide though. I'm just trying to contribute a set of build instructions that an occasional Linux user with rusty C++ skills could follow. Maybe the fast-track for source distribution builds needs to be made a little clearer? Rupert On 2/13/07, Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Rupert Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've attached a patch for cpp build instructions to: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/QPID-351 > > > > If some c++ person could take a quick look at it and make any > > necessary amendments? Don't forget to add it to the packaging so it > > gets included in source distributions and delete the other superceded > > build instructions. > > Hi Rupert, > > Getting rid of README.rhel3 is a good idea, assuming someone > has confirmed that the regular "./configure && make && make check" > works just as well. > > The instructions were deliberately separated because the two scenarios > are so different: > > The build-from-distribution-tarball scenario requires only > minimal tools. It should work on nearly any system with > a POSIX shell and a few basic tools like sed, awk, and grep. > > The build-from-checkout scenario requires much more > infrastructure, and is complicated enough that even developers > can be frustrated trying to meet all of the dependencies. > > So, I think it is worthwhile to retain the README/README-dev separation, > to ease the build process for those who start from the tarball, without > confusing/frustrating them with the long dependency list that developers > must confront. > > Jim >
