RE: Sources in Binary Distributions
A little late +1 Thanks to remove sources from binaries :) That's how the majority of OSS projects works today. Source - binaries (eventually packaging like RPM/DEB) - Henri Gomez ___[_] EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED](. .) PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo... PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6 -Original Message- From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 1:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sources in Binary Distributions On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Christopher Cain wrote: On a related topic, I was a little surprised to find a source directory in my dist build. Well, ant dist ***is*** how binary distributions (for both the nightly builds and releases) are created, so this should not be too much of a surprise :-). Craig McClanahan
Re: Sources in Binary Distributions
ducks from possible continuance of this thread =) - r On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 14:55:39 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A little late +1 Thanks to remove sources from binaries :) That's how the majority of OSS projects works today. Source - binaries (eventually packaging like RPM/DEB) - Henri Gomez ___[_] EMAIL : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (. .) PGP KEY : 697ECEDD...oOOo..(_)..oOOo... PGP Fingerprint : 9DF8 1EA8 ED53 2F39 DC9B 904A 364F 80E6 -Original Message- From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 1:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sources in Binary Distributions On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Christopher Cain wrote: On a related topic, I was a little surprised to find a source directory in my dist build. Well, ant dist ***is*** how binary distributions (for both the nightly builds and releases) are created, so this should not be too much of a surprise :-). Craig McClanahan
RE: Sources in Binary Distributions
I also plan to leave the source code in the Windows installer distribution, since IMO it's supposed to be a comprehensive all-in-one download. The source code is not installed by default. Remy
Re: Sources in Binary Distributions
Why not have three different downloads? src, bin, and src + bin. (ie: can't we all just get along? ;) ) -Paul Speed Rob S. wrote: So what we have here is a minority of developers who look through the Tomcat source, versus the majority of people who have no interest in the /src dir. The argument is leave src in there so that when I want to look at the source, i don't have to download a src dist. For some reason, the keep it in there argument almost makes it sounds like the src is unavailable unless it's in the bin build. Personally, for all of the people that could care less about the source, I don't think it's asking much for people who want to look at the source to go and get it...? - r -Original Message- From: Loïc Lefèvre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 12:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Sources in Binary Distributions Absolutely agree with you! -Message d'origine- De : Arun Katkere [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Envoyé : jeudi 2 août 2001 17:28 À : '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Objet : RE: Sources in Binary Distributions I don't generally throw in my $0.02 into a well worn thread and add to the noise , but there is another issue which I didn't see anyone bring up. Having source around helps you with debugging. And if that results in better bug reports, i.e., instead of it doesn't work and here is the stack trace, you get it doesn't work because you didn't check for null around this line of this file, it is probably worth it. Keep in mind that many of Tomcat users are competent Java developers. And we are not talking about the entire build system here. Just the basic .java files. Not even native components (which don't aid in this purpose). Sun's Java2 SDK includes the source (just the .java files) for I suspect the same reason. Personally, I download the source distribution only when there is a critical issue in Tomcat that we need resolved now, and patch and build with that fix. Source in the binary on the other hand is useful for many reasons even if you discount the first step towards getting people involved argument. A quick check of some aspect of servlet/JSP spec(without going through 100s of pages of PDF). Help quickly identify whether the issue is with Tomcat or your code. All on machines where you typically don't have the full development environment set up (when we are talking about JSP and not servlets). Of course, one can always download the source distribution. So, if you are set on saving folks a few seconds (or minutes) of download time at a slight cost for those of us who do find it invaluable, that's fine. -arun -Original Message- From: Rob S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 4:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Sources in Binary Distributions I'd like to second that. I am currently not involved in any active development, but looking at sources contained in a binary dist is certainly the first step towards getting involved (its on my list (o: ) So you *expect* the /src dir in a binary dist? That's mind-blowing to me. If you're interested in TC development, your first thought isn't Time to go d/l the src distro it's Time to d/l the bin dist so I can check out the src ? I'm not making a huge stand here, I thought bringing up the suggestion was almost common sense. It's a bin dist, i.e. !(src included). I wouldn't expect it to be there shrug - r
Re: Sources in Binary Distributions
Rob doesn't need me to defend him ... but I will anyway =) Arun Katkere wrote: OK, Rob, you are the voice of the majority (I probably missed a vote on this topic where people told you so) Craig initially proposed it early last week, and I was the first one to step up with vocal support for it (and I am still the loudest proponent :-) and we are a few lazy developers wanting to avoid an extra download. Take the source out. I'm not sure what Rob's reaction to this is, but I'll say it ... essentially, yes. I would have phrased it in a slightly more polite way, but that's essentially the argument. The argument of leaving it in as a marketing ploy for attracting new developers is probably the strongest argument I've heard to date (although in my own very humble opinion, the overhead outweighs the slight potentional benefit). The argument that the occasional hackers don't want to be bothered with a separate download just makes no sense to me. If you plan on doing any hacking whatsoever, just get the source. Hell, alot of people who don't plan on EVER hacking it get the source, if for no other reason just so that they can build it on their own machine. In my opinion, the people who download the binaries are not the slightest bit interested in the code, or even in building it themselves. They want to download it, unpack it, and move on with their day. Anyone who wants to do anything other than to get it up and running in 15 minutes grabs the source. -arun ps: For what it is worth, my argument was not leave src in there so that when I want to look at the source, i don't have to download a src dist as you put it, it was that having the Java source available to a debugger is a legetimate reason to include source in a binary distribution (you can leave it jar'd if you like, as Sun does with Java2 SDK). Again, anyone savvy enough to set up Tomcat in a debugging tool space (last time I tried it, it was ... less than intuitive) is probably working off the source dist. People willing to invest that much time and effort in tracking down a problem themselves are not the same people who grab binaries. With all due respect to end users, they simply e-mail us and say it's broken :-) Let me go back to lurking and leave the business of posting to those of you who can post the same argument 10 times without reading what the other person is saying. That's simply a ludicrous statement. If you think Rob is not one of the more ... eh, polite ... posters, then you clearly have not been subscribed to any dev lists for very long. If simply failing to address every single one of your points directly qualifies as a slight, then God help you when someone like Jon gets ahold of you ;-) Rob is definitely one of the more personable characters who hangs out here, and I usually see him go out of his way to play well with others. I say this not as an insult in any way, but you should really lighten up a bit if you plan on involving yourself in dev-list discussions. It's not as if your points are patently ludicrous, and in fact your debugger argument was actually quite interesting, even if I don't personally see it as good enough reason to leave source in a binary distro. You're actively involved in this discussion, yet you didn't feel the need to address my everything in it's rightful place argument, so does that mean that you are ignoring what *I* am saying? Certainly not, so don't take it so personally. We're all bootylicious here, my man ... ease up a bit :-) - Christopher -Original Message- From: Rob S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 9:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Sources in Binary Distributions So what we have here is a minority of developers who look through the Tomcat source, versus the majority of people who have no interest in the /src dir. The argument is leave src in there so that when I want to look at the source, i don't have to download a src dist. For some reason, the keep it in there argument almost makes it sounds like the src is unavailable unless it's in the bin build. Personally, for all of the people that could care less about the source, I don't think it's asking much for people who want to look at the source to go and get it...? - r -Original Message- From: Loïc Lefèvre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 12:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Sources in Binary Distributions Absolutely agree with you! -Message d'origine- De : Arun Katkere [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Envoyé : jeudi 2 août 2001 17:28 À : '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Objet : RE: Sources in Binary Distributions I don't generally throw in my $0.02 into a well worn thread and add to the noise , but there is another issue which I didn't see anyone bring up. Having source around helps you with debugging. And if that results in better bug
Re: Sources in Binary Distributions
Fabien Le Floc'h wrote: As a tomcat user, I am not so enthousiast about your idea of removing the sources from the binaries. Almost every user download only the binaries. Having the sources inside means bringing more developers to the Tomcat project, just because it will be easier to take a look at the sources (since it is already installed in their tomcat dir). The more you look at the sources, the more you are likely to be involved. The sources are only about 2MB and 1 directory. It is anything but a mess on the harddisk. Furthermore it is the exact sources for the particular binary the user has, not some more recent or older sources. I'm not sure I agree with forcing the user to take the source as some sort of evangelical device, but this last point is well made I think. I've encountered more than one case of someone new to Tomcat in particular and Open Source in general being confused about the relationship between the source and binary versions. While you might argue that they should damn well RTFM, I can see value in tying the source and binary versions together to avoid a bit of confusion. -- Andy Armstrong, Tagish
RE: Sources in Binary Distributions
I don't generally throw in my $0.02 into a well worn thread and add to the noise , but there is another issue which I didn't see anyone bring up. Having source around helps you with debugging. And if that results in better bug reports, i.e., instead of it doesn't work and here is the stack trace, you get it doesn't work because you didn't check for null around this line of this file, it is probably worth it. Keep in mind that many of Tomcat users are competent Java developers. And we are not talking about the entire build system here. Just the basic .java files. Not even native components (which don't aid in this purpose). Sun's Java2 SDK includes the source (just the .java files) for I suspect the same reason. Personally, I download the source distribution only when there is a critical issue in Tomcat that we need resolved now, and patch and build with that fix. Source in the binary on the other hand is useful for many reasons even if you discount the first step towards getting people involved argument. A quick check of some aspect of servlet/JSP spec(without going through 100s of pages of PDF). Help quickly identify whether the issue is with Tomcat or your code. All on machines where you typically don't have the full development environment set up (when we are talking about JSP and not servlets). Of course, one can always download the source distribution. So, if you are set on saving folks a few seconds (or minutes) of download time at a slight cost for those of us who do find it invaluable, that's fine. -arun -Original Message- From: Rob S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 4:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Sources in Binary Distributions I'd like to second that. I am currently not involved in any active development, but looking at sources contained in a binary dist is certainly the first step towards getting involved (its on my list (o: ) So you *expect* the /src dir in a binary dist? That's mind-blowing to me. If you're interested in TC development, your first thought isn't Time to go d/l the src distro it's Time to d/l the bin dist so I can check out the src ? I'm not making a huge stand here, I thought bringing up the suggestion was almost common sense. It's a bin dist, i.e. !(src included). I wouldn't expect it to be there shrug - r
RE: Sources in Binary Distributions
OK, Rob, you are the voice of the majority (I probably missed a vote on this topic where people told you so) and we are a few lazy developers wanting to avoid an extra download. Take the source out. -arun ps: For what it is worth, my argument was not leave src in there so that when I want to look at the source, i don't have to download a src dist as you put it, it was that having the Java source available to a debugger is a legetimate reason to include source in a binary distribution (you can leave it jar'd if you like, as Sun does with Java2 SDK). Let me go back to lurking and leave the business of posting to those of you who can post the same argument 10 times without reading what the other person is saying. -Original Message- From: Rob S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 9:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Sources in Binary Distributions So what we have here is a minority of developers who look through the Tomcat source, versus the majority of people who have no interest in the /src dir. The argument is leave src in there so that when I want to look at the source, i don't have to download a src dist. For some reason, the keep it in there argument almost makes it sounds like the src is unavailable unless it's in the bin build. Personally, for all of the people that could care less about the source, I don't think it's asking much for people who want to look at the source to go and get it...? - r -Original Message- From: Loïc Lefèvre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 12:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Sources in Binary Distributions Absolutely agree with you! -Message d'origine- De : Arun Katkere [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Envoyé : jeudi 2 août 2001 17:28 À : '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Objet : RE: Sources in Binary Distributions I don't generally throw in my $0.02 into a well worn thread and add to the noise , but there is another issue which I didn't see anyone bring up. Having source around helps you with debugging. And if that results in better bug reports, i.e., instead of it doesn't work and here is the stack trace, you get it doesn't work because you didn't check for null around this line of this file, it is probably worth it. Keep in mind that many of Tomcat users are competent Java developers. And we are not talking about the entire build system here. Just the basic .java files. Not even native components (which don't aid in this purpose). Sun's Java2 SDK includes the source (just the .java files) for I suspect the same reason. Personally, I download the source distribution only when there is a critical issue in Tomcat that we need resolved now, and patch and build with that fix. Source in the binary on the other hand is useful for many reasons even if you discount the first step towards getting people involved argument. A quick check of some aspect of servlet/JSP spec(without going through 100s of pages of PDF). Help quickly identify whether the issue is with Tomcat or your code. All on machines where you typically don't have the full development environment set up (when we are talking about JSP and not servlets). Of course, one can always download the source distribution. So, if you are set on saving folks a few seconds (or minutes) of download time at a slight cost for those of us who do find it invaluable, that's fine. -arun -Original Message- From: Rob S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 4:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Sources in Binary Distributions I'd like to second that. I am currently not involved in any active development, but looking at sources contained in a binary dist is certainly the first step towards getting involved (its on my list (o: ) So you *expect* the /src dir in a binary dist? That's mind-blowing to me. If you're interested in TC development, your first thought isn't Time to go d/l the src distro it's Time to d/l the bin dist so I can check out the src ? I'm not making a huge stand here, I thought bringing up the suggestion was almost common sense. It's a bin dist, i.e. !(src included). I wouldn't expect it to be there shrug - r
Re: Sources in Binary Distributions
Arun Katkere wrote: I stand corrected. On the Rob thing or the Craig thing? In any case, no worries, Ace! =) Is it possible, then, to archive all the releases of Tomcat on jakarta.apache.org? I noticed that there is http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-tomcat/archives/ (is there a site link to this somewhere?). But, not all releases can be found there (3.2.2, for instance). Not sure where all the archives is linked. The reason some of the releases are not archived (3.2.2, for example) is because they contained security holes, and we want to ensure that users definitely download the latest stable release with all security patches for the serious issues (ala 3.2.3). It's more of a fail-safe against people accidentally downloading older, unsecured versions of the program. That's the argument the security-related ommissions, anyway. 3.2.3 is STRONGLY recommended 3.2 release, 3.3 is now in beta (although I believe that the milestones are still available), and AFAIK all of the 4.0 betas are still there. - Christopher -arun ps: One can always check out of CVS based on a release label, of course. -Original Message- From: Christopher Cain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 12:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sources in Binary Distributions Rob doesn't need me to defend him ... but I will anyway =) Arun Katkere wrote: OK, Rob, you are the voice of the majority (I probably missed a vote on this topic where people told you so) Craig initially proposed it early last week, and I was the first one to step up with vocal support for it (and I am still the loudest proponent :-) and we are a few lazy developers wanting to avoid an extra download. Take the source out. I'm not sure what Rob's reaction to this is, but I'll say it ... essentially, yes. I would have phrased it in a slightly more polite way, but that's essentially the argument. The argument of leaving it in as a marketing ploy for attracting new developers is probably the strongest argument I've heard to date (although in my own very humble opinion, the overhead outweighs the slight potentional benefit). The argument that the occasional hackers don't want to be bothered with a separate download just makes no sense to me. If you plan on doing any hacking whatsoever, just get the source. Hell, alot of people who don't plan on EVER hacking it get the source, if for no other reason just so that they can build it on their own machine. In my opinion, the people who download the binaries are not the slightest bit interested in the code, or even in building it themselves. They want to download it, unpack it, and move on with their day. Anyone who wants to do anything other than to get it up and running in 15 minutes grabs the source. -arun ps: For what it is worth, my argument was not leave src in there so that when I want to look at the source, i don't have to download a src dist as you put it, it was that having the Java source available to a debugger is a legetimate reason to include source in a binary distribution (you can leave it jar'd if you like, as Sun does with Java2 SDK). Again, anyone savvy enough to set up Tomcat in a debugging tool space (last time I tried it, it was ... less than intuitive) is probably working off the source dist. People willing to invest that much time and effort in tracking down a problem themselves are not the same people who grab binaries. With all due respect to end users, they simply e-mail us and say it's broken :-) Let me go back to lurking and leave the business of posting to those of you who can post the same argument 10 times without reading what the other person is saying. That's simply a ludicrous statement. If you think Rob is not one of the more ... eh, polite ... posters, then you clearly have not been subscribed to any dev lists for very long. If simply failing to address every single one of your points directly qualifies as a slight, then God help you when someone like Jon gets ahold of you ;-) Rob is definitely one of the more personable characters who hangs out here, and I usually see him go out of his way to play well with others. I say this not as an insult in any way, but you should really lighten up a bit if you plan on involving yourself in dev-list discussions. It's not as if your points are patently ludicrous, and in fact your debugger argument was actually quite interesting, even if I don't personally see it as good enough reason to leave source in a binary distro. You're actively involved in this discussion, yet you didn't feel the need to address my everything in it's rightful place argument, so does that mean that you are ignoring what *I* am saying? Certainly not, so don't take it so personally. We're all bootylicious here, my man
RE: Sources in Binary Distributions
First, I'm very impressed that someone answer me in this mailing-list (I mean DEV). -- Christopher Cain wrote: Loïc Lefèvre wrote: In my mind, there is one argument to let the source code in the binaries: To enhance myself tomcat when nothing else can help you. That's what the source distribution is for :-) I know ;), and that's good! I (and I'm NOT alone) have encountered many problems using Tomcat and thus there are good answers to good faqs, I had to resolve some problems... I'm sorry to hear that your've encountered *many* problems with Tomcat. If by problems you mean bugs, I'd be interested in knowing which versions you've had difficulties with so that we can address the issues. My version is: Tomcat 3.2.3 *final* downloaded the day it has been released. (No previous, no milestone..., just the final one) Are we talking about previous milestones, or the more recent betas? Are we talking the 3.x branches or 4.0? I know I speak for all Tomcat developers when I say that we want to produce the finest server on the planet, and if people are having what they consider to be excessive problems, then we'd love to hear about it so that we can build a better product. And I report my problems for these reasons! If you're talking instead about usage and configuration problems, then that's a documentation problem on our part. I know the docs are not what they could be, or even *should* be, but if you follow the dev list then you know that we are working on it. I think you'll see a vastly improved documentation bundle for both branches in the next few months. Just hang in there ;-) Yes I've encoutered configuration problems, one week spent to finally see that my WEB-INF directory (I developp under windows NT and test under linux) were Web-inf in windows explorer but web-inf under DOS! So when deploying, under linux (which is case sensitiv) nothing worked. I think a little remark in the doc could help ;) (and I've got some not resolved...) If you mean bugs, then I hope you're reporting them in Bugzilla, right? Hemm no, here and in user mailing-list, I don't know the process to report bugs on Bugzilla nor have the time (for now, I have to migrate from JServ to Tomcat and I've already spent two weeks...). In fact, I've been on the bug report page (tomcat one) but found the web interface very complex (I'm french and a bugreport.html.fr could be great ;)) The last bug I have is about cookies, I've got 4 pictures describing the HTTP-packets I receive and send under Apache JServ and Tomcat and strangely: - Under JServ: - I receive cookies - I can send these cookies - Under Tomcat: - I receive 2 cookies (header Set-Cookie + Set-Cookie2) - I (my browser, IE 5.0) don't send any cookie. Session tracking doesn't work :((. If you want, I can send you these pictures to see by yourself. Is that a bug (Tomcat don't write correctly the cookies) or a configuration problem (IE doesn't support Set-Cookie2? and I have to upgrade to 5.5 or 6beta) I don't know. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/index.html Thanks for the url :) and without the sources I would not have choose Tomcat... Consider I'm a developper responsible of the migration from Apache JServ to Tomcat, there are 9 other people who will hear about tomcat... so now Imagine: me - 9 10 - 90 100 - 900!!! and I work in a little enterprise! So think about it... I don't think you'll get any arguments here, on an Open Source developer list, about the importance of having the source code available. I just don't think that anyone is well-served by having the source code crammed down their throats. Some people believe in Open Source, and they like the fact that it is available for review if something should arise, but they aren't necessarily interested in having it forced on them. If they chose to downloaded the binary release, with the link to the source release right beside it, then they obviously didn't necessarily want the source code at this time. If they want to at any future time, there's little chance they don't know where it can be had. I just think it's rude to include the entire source tree when someone explicitly chose the binaries, since they obviously had their reasons from not clicking on the source link. I agree but I thought about advertisment here and the more people would be informed about Tomcat Open source devloppment the more there will be devlopper to work... if for these 900 people, 10 decide to join the jakarta project, I think it's better than nothing ;) In any case, I'm glad to hear that you recommend Tomcat, and I hope that you'll see most of your problems resolved in the coming months. With a vastly improved documenatation bundle, and with both trees closing in on an official release, I think the future looks bright
Re: Sources in Binary Distributions
I'd like to second that. I am currently not involved in any active development, but looking at sources contained in a binary dist is certainly the first step towards getting involved (its on my list (o: ) cheers dim Fabien Le Floc'h wrote: As a tomcat user, I am not so enthousiast about your idea of removing the sources from the binaries. Almost every user download only the binaries. Having the sources inside means bringing more developers to the Tomcat project, just because it will be easier to take a look at the sources (since it is already installed in their tomcat dir). The more you look at the sources, the more you are likely to be involved. The sources are only about 2MB and 1 directory. It is anything but a mess on the harddisk. Furthermore it is the exact sources for the particular binary the user has, not some more recent or older sources. Regards, Fabien
Re: Sources in Binary Distributions
As a tomcat user, I am not so enthousiast about your idea of removing the sources from the binaries. Almost every user download only the binaries. Having the sources inside means bringing more developers to the Tomcat project, just because it will be easier to take a look at the sources (since it is already installed in their tomcat dir). The more you look at the sources, the more you are likely to be involved. The sources are only about 2MB and 1 directory. It is anything but a mess on the harddisk. Furthermore it is the exact sources for the particular binary the user has, not some more recent or older sources. Regards, Fabien
RE: Sources in Binary Distributions
For Tomcat 4, what do folks think of omitting the sources from the binary distribution? This would knock the size of the binary distributions down by around 2 megabytes (which I'm sure people would also appreciate). ...exactly why I emailed about it in the first place =) I have an old laptop with a paltry 2GB HD and with Windows, every OUNCE of space I can free up is worth it. Also, I think 3.x still includes them and I'm kind of surprised to see src in there. Whenever I want to see src, I always go to web cvs anyways. I think it's good to have the source for the version you're running if you ever need to snoop around, but we could save the world some bandwidth and time for the very few instances this occurs =) - r
Re: Sources in Binary Distributions
Craig R. McClanahan wrote: [snip] For Tomcat 4, what do folks think of omitting the sources from the binary distribution? This would knock the size of the binary distributions down by around 2 megabytes (which I'm sure people would also appreciate). FWIW, I completely agree. I actually get a little irritated when I download a package for which I specifically selected binary and find source in my directory tree. It needlessly dragged out out my download time and junks up my hard drive. The only reason I ever download binaries is if I am not at all interested in the source for that particular package, and I will download the source myself should I become so. I find it cheeky to sneak it in there. Not that I ever feel that way about Tomcat, of course ... I love you guys and all your fancy-schmancy code =) On a related topic, I was a little surprised to find a source directory in my dist build. Again, today was my very first forray into 4.0, so I have no historical context for the 4.0 build process. I did read somewhere along the way that build dist was to produce exactly the same layout as something else (the binary distro, perhaps, but I can't remember), so maybe that's the reason it is historically included. But as long as you are considering dropping the source from the binaries, which I think is a good idea, my humble suggestion would also be to drop it from the dist target. Again, it was an very extraneous directory for the production system where I sent it, so I ended up manually deleting it. Anyway, just my experience ... - Christopher
RE: Sources in Binary Distributions
-Original Message- From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [...] For Tomcat 4, what do folks think of omitting the sources from the binary distribution? This would knock the size of the binary distributions down by around 2 megabytes (which I'm sure people would also appreciate). +1 And also update the build.xml to omitt the sources when compiling with target dist. ..bip
RE: Sources in Binary Distributions
-Original Message- From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [...] Well, ant dist ***is*** how binary distributions (for both the nightly builds and releases) are created, so this should not be too much of a surprise :-). Oups, ignore my last post. ..bip
RE: Sources in Binary Distributions
-Original Message- From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [...] For Tomcat 4, what do folks think of omitting the sources from the binary distribution? This would knock the size of the binary distributions down by around 2 megabytes (which I'm sure people would also appreciate). +1 And also update the build.xml to omitt the sources when compiling with target dist. ++1
