Source distributions (Re: cvs commit: ...)

[Jeff Turner <je...@socialchange.net.au>]

On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 09:11:48PM +1000, Peter Donald wrote:
> About this. What does everyone think of not having both a binary and source 
> distribution for all the excalibur packages. They are the type of things 
> where you want both source and binaries for when integrating into your own 
> apps. I would prefer one combined distribution that had both source and 
> binaries.

How about we just bundle the jar in the source distribution? That's what
this src-dist prototype does.

The jar is typically much smaller than the source, so including the jar
has relatively little impact. Eg, io has a 20k jar (compressed), and
332k of source code. This ratio also makes the binary-only distribution
significantly smaller than the source distribution. For io, the source
distro is 155k (with jar), binary is 89k. For this reason, I wouldn't
like to give up the binary distribution.


--Jeff

> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 21:11, jefft@apache.org wrote:
> > jefft       02/04/14 04:11:29
> >
> >   Modified:    io       build.xml default.properties
> >   Log:
> >   Make src-dist more like dist

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: Source distributions (Re: cvs commit: ...)

[Jeff Turner <je...@socialchange.net.au>]

On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 10:26:29PM +1000, Peter Donald wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:11, Jeff Turner wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 09:11:48PM +1000, Peter Donald wrote:
> > > About this. What does everyone think of not having both a binary and
> > > source distribution for all the excalibur packages. They are the type of
> > > things where you want both source and binaries for when integrating into
> > > your own apps. I would prefer one combined distribution that had both
> > > source and binaries.
> >
> > How about we just bundle the jar in the source distribution? That's what
> > this src-dist prototype does.
> >
> > The jar is typically much smaller than the source, so including the jar
> > has relatively little impact. Eg, io has a 20k jar (compressed), and
> > 332k of source code. This ratio also makes the binary-only distribution
> > significantly smaller than the source distribution. For io, the source
> > distro is 155k (with jar), binary is 89k. For this reason, I wouldn't
> > like to give up the binary distribution.
> 
> Thats definetly possible. Personally I am not sure I see a use for it. These 
> libraries are small enough that it wouldn't really matter either way IMHO. 
> 56K is not something that is significant nowadays.

Guess not, though it's the ratio which is more important. The difference
for Altrmi is 360k. Choice can't hurt..

> But if you want to keep it then I guess we can. However how about we
> name the combined dist "foo.zip" and the binary dist "foo-bin.zip" (ie
> drop the "-src" specifier).

+1

--Jeff


> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> Peter Donald
> 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: Source distributions (Re: cvs commit: ...)

[Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:11, Jeff Turner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 09:11:48PM +1000, Peter Donald wrote:
> > About this. What does everyone think of not having both a binary and
> > source distribution for all the excalibur packages. They are the type of
> > things where you want both source and binaries for when integrating into
> > your own apps. I would prefer one combined distribution that had both
> > source and binaries.
>
> How about we just bundle the jar in the source distribution? That's what
> this src-dist prototype does.
>
> The jar is typically much smaller than the source, so including the jar
> has relatively little impact. Eg, io has a 20k jar (compressed), and
> 332k of source code. This ratio also makes the binary-only distribution
> significantly smaller than the source distribution. For io, the source
> distro is 155k (with jar), binary is 89k. For this reason, I wouldn't
> like to give up the binary distribution.

Thats definetly possible. Personally I am not sure I see a use for it. These 
libraries are small enough that it wouldn't really matter either way IMHO. 
56K is not something that is significant nowadays. But if you want to keep it 
then I guess we can. However how about we name the combined dist "foo.zip" 
and the binary dist "foo-bin.zip" (ie drop the "-src" specifier).



-- 
Cheers,

Peter Donald


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>