On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 7:04 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> By the way, I am not even saying we are creating this burden. I
> posted this here because I was told we were not distributing
> Subversion correctly and I wanted to get feedback on that. I have
> never really understood why we did not distribute Neon as a DLL in the
> first place. It seems kind of arbitrary that it is static when almost
> everything else is a DLL.
I'm not a neon expert, but it doesn't look to me like neon supports
being built as a DLL on Windows (at least version 0.27.2 that I
glanced over). I think it needs to have public header files tweaked
to declare exported functions slightly differently on Windows, and the
neon.mak file would need to support a new option to support building a
DLL.
I haven't followed this whole thread very closely, but I have verified
that the 'licenses' directory is missing from the 1.4.6 zip where as
it is present in the 1.4.5 zip. That is a mistake, of course, and I'm
not sure what happened since I believe code was added to the python
script that does the packaging a while ago (after Lieven pointed out
that we should be doing that). I (or whoever wants to, really) can
re-package the 1.4.6 zip if needed, and we should verify that 1.5 gets
the licenses in the right place, of course.
Anyway, as to where exactly the license files should go (if the
licenses subfolder is not appropriate) and whether or not statically
linking neon is a problem, I have no idea.
DJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-05-09 17:56:30 CEST