On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 10:57:35PM +0200, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> >We can't ship an APR 1.x release because it's not binary
> >compatible with the previous releases, so we're stuck wiht 0.9.x for
> >the foreseeable future.
>
> I disagree. We're not forced to ship anything. And while we're at the
> subject, I get more and more APR 0.9.x vs Apache 2.2 (ie APR 1.x)
> compile problems on #svn. So, I'm in favor of not shipping anything
> and make people look at their systems to find the right APR to link
> against instead of using a default which gets us into trouble more and
> more often.
>
+1 to no longer shipping our dependencies in our tarball, but I'd note
that we've discussed doing this for several releases now, and for whatever
reason haven't managed it yet.
I think one of the sticking points was the wish to continue shipping
a with-deps version of the tarball. I don't think we should be doing
that, personally - it adds extra complexity to the release process, and
it's just odd anyway (we ship APR and Neon, but not zlib, BDB, or Serf).
Regards,
Malcolm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jul 6 12:09:32 2006