> > Troy Simpson wrote:
> > I was advised to discuss this on the dev list, which is
> > what I did, however there has been zero response. There is
> > more discussion on the user end than the developer end. If
> > anyone in user-land has the capability to construct the
> > binaries in a similar fashion to the way they were produced
> > before, I for one would bring this to the attention of the
> > developer list if nobody else does. It is my opinion that
> > the project should have a 'supported' release to assist with
> > bug finding and to provide end-users with a standard
> > base-level release.
I cannot help thinking that we might have avoided a lot of questions and
frustrations if a status note and request for a new maintainer had been
added to either the download page (still tigris.org) and/or the Windows
Binaries page at apache
> Olivier Sannier wrote:
> So the situation is as follows:
> The previous builder (DJ Heap?) does not have the time to
> build the Win32 binaries anymore.
> I, for one, could dedicate a few hours to create the latest
> ones and the next ones as well. It does not seem too much
> complicated to build them.
> What I'm lacking is a description of what to run and in what order.
> I mean, there are Python scripts related to win32 in the
> build folder, but I am not sure what they are doing. Having a
> simple "step by step" guide would actually save time.
> Is there a way to ask the previous builder to at least document this?
I have looked at buiding the binaries myself but am unsure of how much
work there is (and I have issues about what I am allowed to install
here) but there seems to be quite a lot involved to build:
~ the main subversion binaries
~ Apache 2.0 binaries
~ Apache 2.2 binaries
~ python bindings for 2.5, 2.6, ...
~ ruby bindings
~ perl bindings
~ JavaHL (?)
~ Debug symbol packages
As previously mentioned, the problem stems mostly from lack of
instructions of how to put this all together...
~ Mark C
Received on 2010-03-02 09:39:06 CET