incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Karl Wright <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache ManifoldCF 0.1
Date Thu, 06 Jan 2011 18:49:46 GMT
The whole question of ease-of-use is what drove this packaging
arrangement.  I was told it was unacceptable to not have a working
example out of the box that could be executed in a single line.  Build
and execution Instructions which involve obtaining a couple of dozen
jars from other places do not fulfill this criterion.

The three copies of the dependent jars occur because of the following:

- There is one copy of the jar that is used by the build
- There are two distinct execution environments, one single-process,
and one multi-process, that are built
- Each execution environment has its own subtree that it executes from

If the built environments are no longer distributed, then there will
be one copy of each dependent jar included.  I'm leaning towards just
having this minimum distribution since size is apparently a huge issue
here.  I still want to know if the source distribution should have the
forrest-built docs or not, though, or whether it should be up to the
user to build their own docs using Forrest themselves.  I would prefer
the former because Forrest is somewhat idiosyncratic, but you guys are
the bosses.


On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 1:39 PM, sebb <> wrote:
> On 6 January 2011 18:23, Karl Wright <> wrote:
>>>> Very well; we will discontinue all binary distributions.
>>> That's not what I said.
>>> You can have a binary distribution if you wish, but there must be a
>>> source distribution.
>> As I said before, it makes no sense to distribute ManifoldCF binaries
>> without complete sources.  So we could (I suppose) have a source
>> distribution AND a source+binary distribution.
> That would be fine.
>>  But we could not simply have a binary distribution and a source distribution.
> That would also work, but would require binary users to download both archives.
> ==
> On a separate matter, I question whether the current packaging is optimal.
> There appear to be 3 copies of every jar in the binary zip file - no
> wonder the file is so large!
> Also, many of the included jars are commonly used elsewhere, so the
> consumer may well already have a copy.
> Generally, the binary jar consists of the compiled source files only.
> Some projects provide additional bundles which include all the
> required dependencies; that might be the way to go here.
>> Karl
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message