New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Tar.gz and Zip downloads are different: the tarball should have the same content as the zip #2793
Conversation
its intentional..., the assumption is that |
Yes, I think this is a problem at least this is a problem to me.
My initial assumption was that the two distros would have at least the same content (baring differences between zip and tar, such as permissions). |
I just explained the reasons for that above, typically, you don't use tar.gz on windows platform, and I don't want to "pollute" the tar.gz with bat files. |
I get your point, but this make it harder and surprising on users for no good reason imho. There is nothing that says that zip are windows only and not Linux or posix OSes and tar.gz is not for windows. About "polluting", note that you still bundle: With your current packaging, no distribution works out of the box on all supported OSes. |
The winnt one is a bug, we shouldn't include it in the |
Don't mind keeping this open, if other people will come across this and think that its valuable, let them vote here, and lets see how it goes. If enough people feel strongly about it, then we can reconsider. |
If that is the route you want take, be kind enough to not remove the posix scripts from the zip, so there still is at least one pre-built download that works across all OSes |
we don't remove the posix scripts from the zip... |
If you'd like to have separate OS specific distributions of your product, be my guest. However, I don't feel that packaging format is a good indicator of OS support. Having an elasticsearch-version-win.zip and elasticsearch-version-unix.tgz as the only officially available packages for these distributions would also seem reasonable. But if I just see a downloads page that lists the same package in two different formats, I assume that the same product was simply repackaged for user convenience. And like others, if I'm in mixed OS company, I'll often just download the .zip package because it's the easiest thing to grok for the largest number of my users. That's my vote. Either explicitly called out OS support, or pile everything into both package formats. |
@CptnKirk "I'll often just download the .zip package because it's the easiest thing to grok for the largest number of my users..." << thats my reasoning as well, thats why the zip package includes everything, both *nix and windows. |
I share the same idea. I really do not expect a zip and a tar.gz to have different content (and especially when it's java software), except if it is clearly stated, and the differences are explained. You may want to keep several packagings, but the target should made be obvious in the archive name, or at least in the download page. For my part, I often download the tar.gz (or tar.bz2, tar.xz) because it's generally smaller than the zip. |
This is still an issue, none can rightfully expect a zip and tar using the same base name to be different in content and I got bitten by this again today. Sad that this was not pulled when still fresh. @kimchy I guess you may still feel strongly about this based on your comments on #3702 ? |
This commit changes the build to include .exe and sigar/.dll files in both the zip and tar artifacts. Closes #2793
That's good news, thanks. |
Thx mucho ! 👍 |
@kimchy There is no reason IMHO for these to be different, which is quite surprising.
The .zip has extra files for Windows-only:
This means that the tar.gz distro CANNOT be used on Windows in practice.
The pull request fixes the file sets, though there is may be a simpler way to do this