On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:44:17PM +0200, ro...@bufferoverflow.ch wrote: > agree with the two patterns! > > >1) Build it yourself > > - download > > - ./configure && make && sudo make install > - do we really need bootstrap.sh?
Yes, bootstrap.sh does the generation of files that a maintainer needs in order to build. The person downloading a tar only uses configure (I didn't actually include the maintainer as a user in this case). > - isn't it possible just with configure? No, not unless you check configure into svn which would be wrong as configure is configured with your system settings. > - using ant as a wrapper on top of other build systems like automake? > prepare, tag, build and publish a release or setup a new development > branch after releasing with one script? I think this is a bad idea. These sorts of other activities can be added into an autotools setup using something like fwtemplates (which I use extensively to build, tag and create rpms and debs for other things I work on, it would require a bit of work to get this going with thrift). > >2) Get a package > - what kind of packages and how to deploy them? Ideally, we have people building debs and rpms and getting them into the public repositories (EPEL and ubuntu repos would hit most users). > - src and binary formats We already have src format, it's the .tar.gz, I mostly mean rpm/deb > - what's preferred deployment format for each Language? I don't quite understand this question, but I think if you look at how the debian packaging works they have a different one for each binding and one for the compiler. The old rpm spec had the same but is out of date. For work I just bundle 5 language bindings and the compiler in one rpm. > - compiler as Debian, Windows and xx package? Yeah, but probably debian, rpm in EPEL for RHEL/Centos, binary for windows, etc. Hope that helps, -Anthony -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anthony Molinaro <antho...@alumni.caltech.edu>
