Quoting "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> First, this replay is not to Branko alone, it's to everyone. He is just
> saying what many other people seems to think about what's written
> On Monday 02 February 2004 22.10, Branko Ä�ibej wrote:
> > Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
> > >Please, look at branches/1.0.x/STATUS. I need some votes.
> > One nit: Pre.rtf says: "Make sure that you replace the any libdb40.dll
> > with this package's libdb42.dll:" This is plainly wrong: If Apache is
> > linked against libdb40.dll, it won't work if you remove that file. And
> > even if it did find the new dll, BDB 4.0 and 4.2 are neither API nor
> > ABI-compatible, even in the small subset which apr_dbm uses.
> Does, that mean that it's no need to mention this at all here? Any
> suggestion of what to write?
I'm still thinking about this. Did the installer use to put libdb40.dll in the
Apache directory, or does it just use something already installed by Apache?
If the first, then there's no problem at all -- the installer can just replace
libdb40.dll with libdb42.dll when it configures the Apache modules, and there's
no need to tell the user about the change.
If the second, then we have a big problem.
> > And it would be oh so nice to fix the English in these docs before we
> > put them into a release...
> Anyone are welcome to fix my English. This happends automatically by
> several people on the CHANGES file and program comments and so on.
> I will work on improving my grammar, but in the meantime - and even
> "English speaking" peopele do mistakes from time to time, I ask/beg
> everyone to tell me what's wrong or fix it.
Jostein, I'm not criticising your English, nor do I expect everyone's English to
be perfect. After all, mine isn't. :-) What I'm saying is, fixing the language
doesn't cost us anything (except somebody's time). I can try to find the time to
do that myself this week.
> > Apart from that, I'm all for merging this to the 1.0 branch. Even if
> > there are still bugs in this version of the installer, they can be no
> > worse than not having wirking installer scripts at all in 1.0, and
> > these changes have no impact on the rest of Subversion.
> For me, this sounds like the installer are next to shit but it's
> tolerable because it's better than nothing (or do I misunderstand
No no no, you misunderstood. I'm very happy with the installer, and I definitely
want to see the changes merged to 1.0. The point of what I wrote is that this
merge should not delay the 1.0 release; that's why I stressed that "these
changes have no impact on the rest of Subversion."
I'm sorry if this wasn't clear.
> I have the Apache routines of altering the httpd.conf and all other
> apache stuff ready, but I will not commit it before the needed excisting
> changes are merged into the branches/1.0.x (it's tough enough to have
> any response of merging the current one as it is).
> But I start to wonder if I should do more about this at all, several
> people want the MS MSI installer in and I will not stand in the way for
> it if that's what people want. And, of course, we have the Nullsoft
I don't know who these "several people" are; I'm definitely not one of them. If
the installer conforms to MS application instalation rules (whatever these are),
and if it behaves sanely (which it does, from all I've seen), then there's no
need to change anything. AFAIK MSI is only required for Windows certification,
and we don't need that.
> I thinks it's time to lend the installer over to someone else (even when
> I love this job), but I wont let it go until after 1.00.0.
Actually, I think you're doing a great job with the installer, and see no reason
why you should stop.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Tue Feb 3 12:31:38 2004