Re: [reSIProcate] New resip release
The stripping last time was (if I recall correctly) driven by the
attempt to have
the tarball present an autotools build system to the extractor - the
other things
that didn't go in were a side effect of that choice.
The next tarball won't bother - it will expose the same build system
you get
when you check out from head (along with the ./configure adam
contributed).
I suspect we'll find the distribution will be a simple tarball of an
anonymous
checkout. (The person checking it out could run svn update on the
unrolled
bits).
RjS
On Aug 3, 2006, at 3:43 PM, Jason Fischl wrote:
On 8/3/06, Alan Hawrylyshen <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2006.08.01, at 14:11 , Jason Fischl wrote:
My recommendation is that this time around, that we just provide a
release number and/or tag associated with the release candidate
rather
than providing a tarball. Once we are ready to do the actual
release,
we can generate the tarball. I think this will lower the bar on
getting new releases out.
Jason
Agreed, however there is some concern around what goes INTO the
tarball, and there will be non-zero time needed to debug the tarball
itself.
I found that our decision to strip lots of stuff out of the tarball
last time was a mistake. I think we should leave most stuff in and
reduce the effort to produce the tarball instead. My guess is that
more frequent releases would be preferred.
_______________________________________________
resiprocate-devel mailing list
resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel