Longstanding issues: structs & standalone Erlang
Wed Feb 22 09:29:54 CET 2006
On Wednesday 22 February 2006 08:28, Bengt Kleberg wrote:
> i would like to have a simple build/install system for normal erlang
> applications/libraries that would work without a gnu system
> (autotools, gnumake, gtar, gcc, etc).
By any means. I have never intendet to say that GNU make should be
required. I did say that for me, make is GNU make, but I also said that
YXA could be compiled with BSD make. That didn't happen by accident,
and did require some work from my side, so that people like you could
compile YXA with BSD make as well.
I bet that when we talk about Erlang in this thread, we all mean the
Ericsson Erlang/OTP though - not just any Erlang ;).
> > Again, Autoconf and make are the best choice in an Unix world,
> > and can also easily be used on Windows (Cygwin), but you can
> > discuss it.
> i do not belive that Autoconf and make are the best choice in an Unix
To be honest I don't particularly like Autoconf either. What I _do_ like
is the de-facto standardized interface to install things that
'./configure; make; make install' provides. If 'configure' is really
created by Autoconf or is in fact a perl-script (or what have you)
doesn't matter to me, as long as it accepts the command line options I
(as a packager) am used to (like --prefix).
> > It was also proposed to make every application (including every
> > OTP app) released separately between developers and packagers,
> > and (at least) between packagers and end users.
> > Everybody seems to agree on that point.
> what if the packagers moved upstreams and became a part of the
This is totally unrealistic. Do you think that people from every
distribution packaging stuff will want to become developers in all the
languages they package?
Bengt, it is rather clear to me that we have incompatible opinions in
this matter. Without the intent of being condescending, I beleive that
you consider Erlang to be a substantial part of your computer. This
might be true for me too, personally, but as a packager, Erlang, Yaws,
ejabberd and YXA together is less than one percent of all the packages
in buildit (and buildit is small, with only ~650 packages).
To be able to afford the effort, such small parts of the overall suite
of packages can't require custom packaging methods. If we want Erlang
applications to be available through the big distributions packaging
systems, we must minimize the trouble the packagers have to go through,
or create applications that creates a demand for the packagers to learn
how to package them.
I personally don't think we can create such demand without getting the
distributions to package our applications _first_.
More information about the erlang-questions