* Nicol?s Lichtmaier <email@example.com> [2006-04-07 18:09:30]:
> Why not, instead of "base" and "full", doing this:
> subversion-1.4.0.tar.gz - Just Subversion
> subversion-1.4.0-deps.tar.gz - Subversion dependencies.
A very potent idea indeed, thanks for suggesting it!
In reply to the rest of the thread, dependancies were indeed removed,
in a dual package offering (with deps and without), for 1.3.0-rc1 and
rc2. The observed effect, as was discussed at the time, was that
those two tarballs didn't gather 6 signatures within about a working
week. We reverted to the previous offering for rc3 and later, and
those gathered sigs in a more timely fashion.
The fact that the tarballs had rolling problems that were detected
after about 5 days may have skewed this result, but I believe that
everyone who'd been around for previous minor releases noticed a
distinct slowing down of the blessing process at the time, before the
packages were recalled.
If we can get quick signing on 6 packages instead of 3, I'm happy to
oblige and produce tarballs with and without dependencies. However, I
am very much more +1 to nick's proposal of shipping a dep-free
tarball, which can be signed by the usual testing procedure, and a
separate "dependencies only" package, which can be verified by basic
diffing, if required.
I feel that this shifts the emphasis to the "light" tarball as being
our official code release, much more so than providing two flavors of
the Subversion source code.
I think this bundling also settles both sides of the "But I want ease
of source build!" vs. "I don't want to download useless bundled code
I'm not using!" quite elegantly.
And finally, as a tangential aside, it would make distributing an APR
1.x ready package much easier, if we want to: just provide two
dependency bundles, one with APR 0.9 for backward compatibility, and
one with APR 1.x for those who want a full APR 1.x ready dependency
suite. And as far as blessing goes, there is still only one
subversion source package to test, the basic one with no bundled deps.
Thoughts? The dist script can be adapted to perform all of this and
more, so it's really down to what we feel is right. I'm:
- +1 on shipping a slim tarball and a separate "deps only" tarball
- +0 on keeping the status quo (and introducing serf for 1.4), and
- -0 on providing two source code tarballs, with and without deps.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Sat Apr 8 04:02:58 2006