On 9/16/06, Lieven Govaerts <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I've installed Subversion 1.4 on my Windows machine using the binaries
> as provided on the s.t.o website.
> During the install I noticed that the text as displayed by the installer
> and the text files included in the installed package are either outdated
> or incorrect (or both).
> Here's a list of things I noticed:
> in the .exe installer:
> * the opening license doesn't have any paragraphs so it's very difficult
> to read. The copyright date is 2004.
> * in pre.rtf: 'Subversion are a compelling replacement', copyright date
> still 2005.
> I've fixed this in r21516
> * in pre.rtf: 'Subversion is using some external programs and libraries
> included in this package. The proper licenses are in the licenses folder
> in the application path created after this installation.'
> There is no such folder in the application path, only in the start menu.
> * in pre.rtf: the link to CHANGES is the version on trunk instead of the
> 1.4 version.
> * In the closing screen: 'The application may be launched by selecting
> the installed icons'. I know this is standard text from the installer,
> but in this case there's only a command-line tool installed.
> * Buildnotes.txt: package contents list several folders which are not
> installed (include, javahl, lib, perl, python). It doesn't list the
> helpers folder which is installed. Why is this file called
> Buildnotes.txt btw? In the zip package this content can be found in
> * What does the file svn-proxy-template.reg do?
> * The Subversion license file isn't installed, if you click on the
> license item in the start menu you get a dialog to search for that file.
> * We distribute bdb 4.4 now, but the Berkely License file has 2001 as
> it's copyright date, so that's clearly not up to date.
> * There's no specific warning that this version uses bdb 4.4. Even the
> and http://subversion.tigris.org/project_packages.html still warn for
> the upgrade of 4.2 to 4.3.
> * We distribute apr in the package, and the asf license requires us (as
> far as I understand it correctly) to include to license file with our
> * We distribute neon in the package, so we should include the GPL
> license file.
> * The zlib library is statically build in the binary (right?), so we
> should include their license file: http://www.zlib.net/zlib_license.html
> * We distribute OpenSSL in the package, so we should include their
> license: http://www.openssl.org/source/license.html
> Note 1: some of this remarks are also applicable to the ZIP package.
> Note 2: these are no new issues, apparently the 1.3.2 package has the
> same problems.
> We should pay much more attention to the quality of the installer, it's
> people first acquaintance with the Subversion product and we don't want
> to give the impression that we don't care for details, right?
> Some of these things need to be checked for every release, I propose we
> include those in our release checklist.
> I'm willing to look into this and help fixing things but I'd like to
> have a second opinion first.
I agree -- we can probably update Branko's make_dist.py script to
handle most of the license files automatically for the binary zips. I
don't know much about the installer, but I've always heard great
things about it. I'm sure Troy would be happy for some help in fixing
I've also been meaning to bring up Apache 2.2 support -- hopefully
there will be a new release before too long and it would be great if
the installer was updated to support it. I don't know what is
involved with that, though.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Sat Sep 16 23:46:39 2006