[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r8530 - branches/1.0.x

From: Jostein Chr. Andersen <jostein_at_josander.net>
Date: 2004-02-03 08:27:16 CET

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 below:

On Monday 02 February 2004 22.10, Branko Čibej 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?

> 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.

> 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

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 just want you to consider this before advocating other installers than
Inno Setup:

* Inno Setup are probably the most stable installer (check Google
  and other places before arguing about that).
* It's using Pascal Scripting (Object Oriented Delphi like) when
  doing more than average installer jobs. This is more powerful
  that VB (VBA), and as easy to use and learn as VB. Many people
  who are monitoring Subversion can Pascal.
* Inno Setup are 100% self contained.
* This projects are some that are using Inno Setup:
  Gimp and GTK for Windows, Nasa (http://mars.telascience.org/)
  and lot of others you can find here:

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.


http://www.josander.net/kontakt/ ||
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Feb 3 08:28:30 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.