On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
<arfrever.fta_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008-05-01 22:04:07 Mark Phippard napisał(a):
>
> > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Branko Èibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> wrote:
> > > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > >
> > > > When GNOME Keyring was found, SVN_HAVE_GNOME_KEYRING is defined in
> > > > svn_private_config.h but this file is never installed.
> > > > I think that svn_auth_get_gnome_keyring_simple_provider should be always
> > > > defined but it shouldn't provide real support for GNOME Keyring when
> > > > Subversion was built without --with-gnome-keyring.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why not? Ideally the keyring store would kick in if the necessary support
> > > is detected at runtime. It seems like a shame to have two different svn
> > > executables, e.g., one for UI-less ubuntu-server and one for ubuntu-desktop.
> > >
> > > For example, the Windows CryptoAPI-based password store is always compiled
> > > in, but checks for CrytoAPI presence at runtime, so you don't need a
> > > specially compiled svn.exe for, e.g., Win98 (and all gods help anyone who's
> > > still using that).
> >
> > I agree wholeheartedly. We (CollabNet) try to provide binaries for
> > Linux and Solaris. It would suck if we had to make one distribution
> > for people with GNOME and one for people without.
>
> Also distribution for KDE :)
Right. And maybe GPG.
> > I would like to be
> > able to create a distribution that does not include it and at runtime
> > if the necessary libraries are present it uses them.
>
> It would require creation of libsvn_subr_gnome-keyring and libsvn_subr_kwallet...
Why? What would ramifications be? Could I build and distribute these
libraries without also having to distribute their dependencies? That
would ultimately be my goal.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on 2008-05-01 22:27:22 CEST