Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?

Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>
> In the pre-1.0 era, we distributed full neon and APR sources with
> Subversion. The reason being that most people had to build from source
> and we didn't want them to have to search for some or all of
> subversion's dependencies.
>
> In the current post 1.2 era, most of our users install one of the binary
> packages either provided from the svn homepage or by packagers. In most
> cases packagers will be bound to system provided versions of neon and
> APR. Remains only a very limited group building from source.
>
> I'd like to break with the pre-1.0 era for the distribution tarball and
> start shipping only the Subversion sources.

Well, one thing I have liked is that I can have someone build subversion
without needing to be sure that APR and neon are up to date (or existing)
on their target servers. This has been important for some of my clients as
they have standardized on RedHat AS 2.1 (many have still not switched to AS 3.0)
and thus the need to build the complete package. (And, Apache 2.0.x too,
for http access)

Maybe there would need to be source packages that are known to work with SVN
available somewhere such that it does not get into a large tree of dependancy
checking and validation.

Otherwise, I would love to see the SVN distribution get slimmer.

BTW - is this really a bad thing to have known good library sources available
in case the user does not have them? Would the support issues not be more
trouble than the extra size/bandwidth the libraries add to the tarball?

-- 
Michael Sinz                     Technology and Engineering Director/Consultant
"Starting Startups"                                mailto:michael.sinz@sinz.org
My place on the web                            http://www.sinz.org/Michael.Sinz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org