Ummm...you are aware that there's been considerable discussion about moving away having a monolithic tarball as being the only means of distribution? And that this includes breaking the synchronous release cycle followed in the past? Moving towards supporting asynchronous releases of packages?
And that folks have already agree that we should strive to do this for OpenACS 4.7?
Comments like this:
However, we are currently pursuing a development route very much in
conflict with this goal. We are adding more packages to the core,
adding more dependencies to the release of a monolithic distribution,
and generally slowing down development.
Aren't really based on fact. It seems to me that you're just trying to rehash the "where should new-portals live?" argument.
What we've faced with is a resource limitation. I ended up being stuck with the task of packaging OpenACS 4.5 all by myself, and I made it clear that this meant that the release would be in the form of a monolithic tarball.
For resource reasons only. I have made this clear more than once.
And do keep in mind that our current 3.x-based openacs.org website doesn't really give any support for a modularilized distribution. This, too, is a resource limitation.
I'm sick and tired of explicit comments and implicit hints that I favor a monolothic distribution and synchronized release schedules as our preferred distribution. I've been following this paradigm out of necessity, not preference.
So, my first reaction? I wish I could quit the project entirely and walk away. Unfortunately I've made commitments that don't make this possible. Those commitments are the only thing keeping me here.
Since I can't follow through on my first reaction, I'll read through your note when I have time - perhaps this weekend - and comment.
But let's set the record straight. Solving distribution issues has been an action item for a year now, with the original thinking that OpenACS 4.5 would be the one and only release made in which one was forced to download a monolithic tarball. Unfortunately OpenACS 4.6 will be distributed in the same way (the fact that we're still running our 3.x openacs.org website being one factor in that decision on my part).
Now ... one thing I will say. There will always be many people who want to download a single tarball of all packages officially supported by the OpenACS project. Huge numbers of people download full ISO images of every RedHat, Mandrake and other releases (including Debian), typically well over a gigabyte download as compared to our puny < 10 megabyte download. Many others buy official CDs of Linux releases.
So I *will* personally oppose any suggestion that we not provide a single tarball for those who want it.
