On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 15:06 +0100, Aidan Skinner wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Aidan Skinner wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Gordon Sim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > There are no distributions of the other languages as we had in M2 for > > > > example. Is that intentional? > > > > > > > > > Yeah, they were only ever source distributions and it seemed a bit > > > silly (and error prone as it was an entirely manual process) to > > > distribute seperate source packages for each one. > > > > That makes no sense, it hurts adoption. Should be not create binaries? > > We've (AFAIK) only ever shipped binaries for Java and .Net (as they > are platform independent), everything else has been a source release. > The change from previous versions is that I've not created source > archives with just the cpp/python/ruby in them, just one big source > archive with everything. > > If people strongly object I can upload them later, but I think this is > a saner way to go. > > - Aidan'
It's not about source vs. binaries, it's about buildable vs. installable. It is not trivial for someone other than a qpid developer to identify exactly the set of files needed for a working python or ruby client installation. It's a lot more friendly to download qpid-ruby.tar which contains exactly the files required. Even better if you can download a package in the languages native install format (.gem for ruby, python has something similar I think.)
