On 4/2/07, Mark Phippard <markphip@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Won't that be putting too much pressure on us to provide different versions
> built with different compilers? "I need APR 1.2.x compiled with VS 2005,
> and I need it right away!" "Where do I get the binary for the latest Neon
> release with SSPI enabled and built with VC 6.0?"
Good point -- however, I think sticking to just VC6 and VS2005 for
compiler support, and only the dependency versions we actually release
with would keep it manageable. Also, most of the dependencies that
are built with VC6 are perfectly usable in VS2005 (especially the
dynamically linked ones).
I would also think we'd use the same dependency packages across an 1.x
line and only change dependencies when going from 1.4 to 1.5 for
example (and many may not change even then) -- at least most of the
time (if we changed a dependency it would most likely be for some
bugfix in that dependency which often means we wouldn't even have to
rebuild -- just install the new dependency dll).
>
> I'd rather see us enhance the build, assuming it cannot do this already, so
> that it can accept pre-compiled binaries for these other pieces. And then
> we could provide a default set or something. But it should still be
> relatively easy for the user to build stuff from source without having to
> stitch it all together themselves.
That is possible to do, I think, but it would significantly complicate
the generator code and I'm not sure how helpful that would be -- you
already have to stitch together roughly half of our dependencies, and
the dependencies that are some of the easiest to build are the ones we
do for you (apr, neon, zlib).
DJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Apr 2 22:38:42 2007