rel: add Windows scripts #148

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Sep 3, 2013

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
Contributor

tuncer commented Jun 23, 2013

No description provided.

Owner

klacke commented Jun 23, 2013

Tuncer, I'm not an active windows user myself I did write the windows installer
scripts though. Do these scripts replace the installer
and the accompanying yaws.exe , Do we need/want both

Contributor

tuncer commented Jun 23, 2013

It's not a replacement but just the windows bits of the scripts used for a reltool based release. The scripts were contributed to rebar's simplenode templates by windows users and I haven't used them myself. Actually, this thread inspired me to submit the patch.

Owner

klacke commented Jun 24, 2013

On 06/23/2013 11:54 PM, Tuncer Ayaz wrote:

It's not a replacement but just the windows bits of the scripts used for a
reltool based release. The scripts were contributed to rebar's simplenode
templates by windows users and I haven't used them myself. Actually, this
thread

inspired me to submit the patch.

--- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#148 (comment)

If I understand this correctly, this is about folks that want to do a reltool
based release of their software on windows, the software release shall
contain yaws.

I'm not sure what the purpose of having these files in the Yaws repo is.

/klacke

Contributor

tuncer commented Jun 24, 2013

Not exactly. This is about creating a reltool based release of yaws itself. yaws already bundles the files in rel/ for this purpose and this patch adds the missing windows specific files. Without this patch a windows release won't have the required scripts to start, stop, control, upgrade such a release (node). Said that, if you think this shouldn't be part of the yaws tree, then it's probably a good idea to remove rel/. @vinoski?

Collaborator

vinoski commented Jun 24, 2013

I think I'd prefer to keep rel/ as I think rebar users expect it to be there.

Contributor

tuncer commented Jun 24, 2013

@klacke, just to be clear, if someone wants to use yaws as a dep and include it inside a reltool release, then the files in rel/ are not used. In that case such a project will have their own rel/.

I think I'd prefer to keep rel/ as I think rebar users expect it to be there.

Do you think we should (not) add the missing windows support in rel/ then?

Collaborator

vinoski commented Jun 24, 2013

Like @klacke I am (thankfully) not a Windows user, but clearly we have users who use Yaws on Windows, so I think we should add the missing support.

Owner

klacke commented Jun 24, 2013

On 6/24/13 6:20 PM, Steve Vinoski wrote:

Like @klacke https://github.com/klacke I am (thankfully) not a Windows
user, but clearly we have users who use Yaws on Windows, so I think we
should add the missing support.

Ok, so you recommend we bring the .bat files in. I feel we should write
some text describing what they are but I'm not sure I feel qualified :-(

/klacke

Contributor

tuncer commented Aug 18, 2013

Ok, so you recommend we bring the .bat files in. I feel we should write some text describing what they are but I'm not sure I feel qualified :-(

Where exactly should the use of rebar generate be documented? The only mention of make release I could find is in www/news. In contrast to make release the current settings in rel/reltool.config create a standalone release that doesn't require a shared install of Erlang/OTP, but we can change this once rebar/rebar#52 is merged.

Collaborator

vinoski commented Aug 26, 2013

There are two primary areas of documentation in Yaws: the website and the LaTeX doc. Building Yaws is currently documented on the website here: http://yaws.hyber.org/configuration.yaws, and it should be easy to add some rebar detail there. Chapter 2 of the yaws.pdf file generated from the LaTeX file also contains information on building, so rebar info could be added there as well.

Contributor

tuncer commented Aug 26, 2013

Done, please check.

Collaborator

vinoski commented Aug 26, 2013

The LaTeX documentation looks fine. Shall I merge this branch in now?

Contributor

tuncer commented Sep 2, 2013

The LaTeX documentation looks fine. Shall I merge this branch in now?

Thanks for the quick review and feel free to merge.

vinoski added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 3, 2013

@vinoski vinoski merged commit 41fcce4 into klacke:master Sep 3, 2013

jgrinstead pushed a commit to jgrinstead/yaws that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2015

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment