coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Olaf van der Spek <olafvdspek@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Olaf van der Spek <olafvdspek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Never happens on Linux, and isn't (forced) to be happening here.
>>>
>>> Windows is not linux, it has its constraints (and advantages) that
>>> force developers to actually do the builds as well. Whether these
>>> binaries will be packaged or distributed by them or 3rd party (some
>>> CoApp structure for example) is an open question at this stage.
>>
>> Why can't building be done by a third party?
>
> Why would we not support 3rd party binaries of our software?

I haven't said you had to support them.
I also haven't said first-party builds are forbidden.

> No control of what they do (custom patches), different compilers
> version with different bugs which have not been caught (or can't) by
> our CI/QA processes. Signed binaries using companies signature. etc.

Maybe CoApp could provide build infrastructure so packages can be
build automatically in a clean and known environment.

> That's why PHP does not support 3rd party builds for example, so does
> many projects with linux packages. It is also the reasons why all
> distributions have their own issues tracker as most of the bugs are
> actually not a bug in the upstream version. I don't think CoApp can do
> that in the long run on Windows.

Who said CoApp won't support first-party builds?

Olaf