Make official ChakraCore binaries easily available to developers on *nix platforms. (e.g. deb and brew feeds)

[dilijev]

As discussed in #85 (especially #85 (comment)), we should have developer feeds for Linux and OS X for the binaries we release for those platforms, since NuGet is probably not the primary choice for development for Native apps on those platforms.

Since the Linux flavor we primary support is Linux, we should start with an apt-get feed for .deb packages.

The goal is to enable developers to do e.g. apt-get install libchakracore and begin development with the ability to link against our official binaries.

For OS X, the obvious choice is Brew.

/cc @obastemur

Work Items:

• Signing linux binaries
• Signing OS X binaries
• Script for installation of official packages which works for all *nix platforms

Extra work items (if deemed valuable):

• apt-get feed
• Brew feed
  • Send a PR to update https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/blob/master/Formula/chakra.rb

[obastemur]

@dilijev we were considering another approach.

ChakraCore runs on many *nix distros without a problem and we would like to cover a wider range with our binary distro without dealing with all the distribution channels one by one.

We may end up with a bash script that detects the environment and installs the appropriate ChakraCore binary.

i.e. $ curl https://aka.ms/abcd | bash (edit: <- this is just a sample line, DO NOT USE IT!)

No matter what *nix platform you are on, the command above should install the latest ChakraCore. We may even provide additional options here to select among the versions, ask some questions etc..

[dilijev]

@obastemur sounds great! However, maybe there's still an opportunity to aid ease of entry for developers on some platforms by integrating with the existing package services?

[dilijev]

Updated title to more generically capture the goal here.

[obastemur]

However, maybe there's still an opportunity to aid ease of entry for developers on some platforms by integrating with the existing package services?

I don't know how that would be easier than the option I have mentioned above. Could you please clarify?

[cosinusoidally]

How about distributing a single binary that works across every supported Linux distribution (for a given architecture)? Much the same as how node.js is distributed. The Linux versions of node.js are distributed as gpg signed tarballs (one per architecture). Their binaries work on a wide range of Linux distributions as they build their binaries on a CentOS 6 system (therefore avoiding depending on newer versions of glibc, which is the cause of a large part of Linux's binary compatibility problems).

[obastemur]

How about distributing a single binary that works across every supported Linux distribution (for a given architecture)? Much the same as how node.js is distributed.

@cosinusoidally that's the plan though and we already have ChakraCore single binary is working on all the recent distros. (once it combined with --embed-icu --static options)

IIRC libc libstdc++ adds aprox 1mb to file size. So, we are not actually worried on this one.

So.. The one-liner I was mentioning above is going to detect unix/posix and target-arch and then download the tarball / print sha / install.. Perhaps it's a good idea to share the tarball links for people who doesn't want to use our automated installer.

edit: fixed a typo

[cosinusoidally]

How about distributing a single binary that works across every supported Linux distribution (for a given architecture)? Much the same as how node.js is distributed.

@cosinusoidally that's the plan though and we already have ChakraCore single binary is working on all the recent distros. (once it combined with --embed-icu --static options)

Just to clarify, are you planning on distributing ChakraCore as a shared library (say libChakraCore.so) plus some headers?

IIRC libc adds aprox 1mb to file size. So, we are not actually worried on this one.

I assume you mean libstdc++ ? I can see that the build.sh script defaults to statically linking libstdc++. Or are you planning to statically link libc (which is glibc on the majority of Linux distros)? I'm finding it difficult to find good info on this but apparently it is a bad idea to statically link glibc (eg, this blog post warns against: http://insanecoding.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/creating-portable-linux-binaries.html).

[obastemur]

Just to clarify, are you planning on distributing ChakraCore as a shared library (say libChakraCore.so) plus some headers?

@cosinusoidally Yes, that's the plan. BTW; fixed the typo above.