Shouldn't there exist a tar.bz2 download

OpenEMR Development
1

tekknogenius wrote on Thursday, March 10, 2005:

Instead of just having the .rpm version for Mandrake, shouldn’t there exist a “source only” version in .tar.gz or .tar.bz2 format for the now Mandrakers amongst us?

2

andres_paglayan wrote on Thursday, March 10, 2005:

Anyone can still use the cvs to checkout as anonymous
but I agree on having a tarbal matching 2.7.0
give me couple of days and I place it.
but I am not used to SF yet and I am not sure if I have rights to do so

3

andres_paglayan wrote on Thursday, March 10, 2005:

Walt has the gentelness of making us admins,
so anyone can go the file release section and release a tarball, but has to read the doc file first,

4

andres_paglayan wrote on Thursday, March 10, 2005:

I already put a tar.bz2 file in the download part, it only includes the openmer part. It goes without freeb and sql-ledger,
I removed the cvs dirs first,

after doing so I realized I made a mistake by naming the release openemr since it would overwrite the 2.7 beta rpm so I uploaded again and renamed openemr_tarball

5

andres_paglayan wrote on Friday, March 11, 2005:

Just changed the bz2 file so it includes the missing core files,
left openemr_tarball_untested as the name, it seems more appropriate,
I’ll be happy to take the responsability of  packing an untested release once a week or biweekly
Let me know if you agree,

6

drbowen wrote on Friday, March 11, 2005:

In general, I think more frequent releases would be an advantage.

Reference: "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"

Sam Bowen, MD

7

tekknogenius wrote on Tuesday, March 15, 2005:

There should only exist one for each release only. If someone wants it otherwise, then use CVS. That was my original intent of the question/suggestion, not to replace grabbing stuff from CVS.

8

drbowen wrote on Tuesday, March 22, 2005:

I agree. But new users are going to want the tarball release to be stable. Labeling as testing or unstable is going to scare people off.

The sourceforge download should really only be for inexperienced users.  Developers are going to know how to get the cvs version.

9

andres_paglayan wrote on Tuesday, March 22, 2005:

I agree with both,

We should have a stable version as well as cutting edge release.

Both in tarball will make donwloader’s life happier.
The only downside is that it implies complicating the working process a little bit.

We should choose between:
Internaly fork (as the linux kernel does) a version to continue with the working code and another to debug and stabilize to get the release.
Or stop new features until the base gets stable and continue when the release gets ready for stable.

I think we should sort of vote and pick one approach (that can lately be changed of course)

10

sunsetsystems wrote on Tuesday, March 22, 2005:

I would vote for the "feature freeze" approach, at least to start, as it would require less administration effort.

Unless someone wants to volunteer to deal with the forking and merging stuff…

– Rod
rod at sunsetsystems dot com