On 27.11.2013 17:09, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel_at_gmail.com
> <mailto:nkadel_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Daniel Shahaf
> <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name <mailto:d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>> wrote:
> > Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote on Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 21:17:11 -0500:
> >> I've gone ahead and updated, and casually tested, my published
> RHEL 6
> >> compatible RPM building tools with a new 1.8.5 tag at:
> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/nkadel/subversion-1.8.x-srpm/tree/1.8.5-0.1
> >
> > Perhaps these should be linked to from
> http://subversion.apache.org/packages?
>
> I'd welcome that. They don't contain binary RPM's, partly because I'm
> not in a good position to run a secure binary repository with GPG keys
> and fully controlled build environments. But they're very useful RPM
> building toolkits for developers, and I've sent notes to RHEL and
> Fedora about issues I've found.. I've also submitted them to Repoforge
> in the past: looks like time to update those rquests.
>
>
> I think it would be very confusing to include this with our binary
> packages. This is not a binary package so why would it belong on that
> list?
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to add a section to INSTALL that points to
> this along with appropriate instructions for using it? Even if that
> just says to read the current README?
Meh. Just remove "binary" from the page title and you're done.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
e. brane_at_wandisco.com
Received on 2013-11-27 17:16:14 CET