[rabbitmq-discuss] Packaging

[Ben Hood]

Holger,

On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Holger Hoffstätte <holger at wizards.de> wrote:
> As I indicated in an exchange with Hubert (Oct.19, also on the internal
> list) I can take care of the Gentoo "packaging", which would consist of a
> small project in the publicly accessible Rabbit hg repo, which users can
> then add to their local list of installation sources. See my mail to
> Hubert for details. There's no real packaging going on, since it just uses
> the existing generic Unix tarball for installation. Could also easily do
> the same for the client libs or shovel.

FTR, this is an excerpt of what Holger wrote to Hubert:

--snip--

That's exactly what I had in mind. Is there some urgent need for the
Gentoo packaging? ebuilds are either in the official package database
("portage", http://packages.gentoo.org/) or can be added to a
distributed
overlay infrastucture of additional mini-repos from the community
("overlays"). These can be added to a client machine's package
repository
via "layman" (http://layman.sourceforge.net/), the overlay manager. It
might make sense to host a Rabbit overlay in LShift's hg repo, which
could
then contain all related ebuilds. I briefly looked into making a
package
for the erlang client but wanted to wait until stable binary packages
are
available, otherwise I'd have to mess around with eUnit for
compilation
and test phase and whatnot.

--snip--

IMHO, Hubert should have cc'ed the Rabbit list instead of our internal
list - there is too much information on the internal list that should
really be public :-(

As for your suggestion, I think it would be coolest if that were in
portage, but of course, somebody has to maintain it.

As for using a repo on RabbitMQ com, I don't know if that's such a
good idea (bureaucratic overhead) and maybe it is unnecessary,
something like bitbucket could do the trick as well.

> Does Windows really require a full-blown installer? It might be easier to
> simply offer a zip and require installing the stock Erlang runtime package
> separately, maybe with a hint to version compatibility or recommendation.
> It's not *that* hard.

Holger, you're preaching to the converted, especially being somebody
who has never installed Rabbit themselves.

But personally I've only run Rabbit on BSD, Arch and OSX, so I am not
the right person to judge the ease of use from a Windows developer's
perspective.

I have received a few comments here and there that surround Windows installers.

So if there is somebody who runs Rabbit on Windows who thinks an
installer would be a good idea, may they step forward.

Ben