On 9/1/05, Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> > The vocal minority, in this case, seems to be a group of people who are not
> > packagers, but for some reason (either because they use an obscure OS, or
> > choose to ignore existing binary packages) build every release from
>
> I don't think either of these reasons are fair summations of the concerns that
> have been raised. A few more legitimate scenarios are:
>
> - 'bootstrapping' the system on which binary packages aren't available
> (IMHO, our binary packages for Solaris and Mac OS X aren't useful.)
>
> - Users don't have the ability to install binary packages
> (Think a standard IT shop that doesn't give root to coders)
>
> - Extending #2, a buggy version is already installed
> (Think RHEL, Debian, etc. which don't go on the bleeding edge.
> They might also ship with buggy APRs and Neon, etc, etc.)
>
> So, we shouldn't be so quick to write off folks who need the dependencies
> bundled with Subversion. There are lots of legitimate scenarios where
> up-to-date binary packages (including the proper dependencies) aren't
> available or can't be installed.
+1.
> Again, the compromise I support is having a version of the source tarballs
> that includes all of the dependencies. -- justin
+1. Should we also favour system libraries over build-directory
libraries, if the system libraries are recent? This would vastly
speed up configure and build times for users who already have some
combination of apr/apr-util/neon installed.
Cheers,
David
--
David James -- http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~james
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Sep 1 19:32:21 2005