On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 10:54 -0400, Marden Marshall wrote: > On Sep 25, 2008, at 10:34 AM, Kevin Thorley wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 10:13 -0400, Ken Mahoney wrote: > >> Good morning, > >> > >> There are a few binary objects that must be present under ~/libsrc > >> before SipX can be fully built. Among these are the java-sun-windows > >> JVM and Sun's JDK package. I believe these types of files should be > >> checked into the sipXecs repository. I was considering whether these > >> should be saved into the ~/src/lib/ directories and then have the lib > >> make infrastructure copy them over to ~/libsrc when a build begins. I > >> realize that traditionally ~/src/lib was preserved for packages that > >> affect SipX run-time only, but maybe it should be expanded to include > >> special packages like these? Or perhaps, a ~/src/buildpkgs directory > >> (or something similarly named) should be created for these types of > >> objects? > >> > > > > I personally don't like stuff like this checked into source control. > > Maybe we should stop keeping anything in source control and go back to > the good old days when we carried stuff around on floppies. I've got > a box of 8 inch floppies that I've been dying to put to use.
I've got a box of floppies I can donate to the cause. > > Seriously, one of the reason that we keep things under source control > is so that we can always go back and reconstruct a software > deliverable at any given time. We have already seen on several > occasions where the "source" for a particular libsrc component was no > longer available. Fortunately we got lucky and were able to recover, > either by upgrading or by searching for a copy from some other > external location. But relying on luck to maintain integrity of our > build process is a fools game. If the contents of the libsrc > directory are critical to building and deploying our product, they > should be treated like any other critical piece of our software and > kept under source control. > Seriously now, I am hardly suggesting that we abandon source control. Nor am I suggesting that we give up repeatable builds. Tools such as Maven and Ivy have come about due to the fact that people realize that source control is for sources and lib repositories are for libs. The sources contain information about what version of a given lib to use. The lib repositories are backed up along with source control. They also keep copies of each version of a particular lib so that you can go back to a previous source and build against the correct libs. They are just as important to repeatable builds as source control, but they keep dependencies out of source control. All I'm suggesting is using the right (IMO) tool for the job. Kevin _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
