2010/2/9 òÏÍÁÎ äÏÎÞÅÎËÏ <DXDragon_at_yandex.ru>:
> Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> ÐÉÓÁÌ × Ó×Ï£Í ÐÉÓØÍÅ Tue, 09 Feb 2010
> 22:14:26 +0300:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <justin_at_erenkrantz.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I suppose we could try to use ASF hardware to assist a volunteer that
>>>> wants to build Windows binaries, but AFAIK, the position of the
>>>> project has not changed about our desire to take any kind of ownership
>>>> of said binaries. šAlso, assuming that these binaries include things
>>>> like Neon, libintl and BDB I assume they still cannot be distributed
>>>> from ASF hardware and would have to be hosted elsewhere for download.
>>>
>>> For a 1.7, why would these have to be requirements?
>>>
>>> We can create binaries that don't use any of those dependencies... š--
>>> justin
>>
>> I will agree that someone could make binaries without those
>> dependencies and just leave it at that.
>>
>
> Where will we send people who actually want those dependencies (I definitely
> want iconv)?
Well, these are the sort of reasons the project has not wanted to get
into the business of providing binaries. There are always going to be
things someone needs. If we provide Python bindings based on 2.6,
someone will want them for 2.4 or 2.5.
To answer your question, you would have to get your binaries from
someone that provides what you want. Note, iconv is not used on
Windows. I assume you meant lib_intl though for the translations.
AFAIK, we could not use that in an ASF-distributed binary because it
is LGPL.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on 2010-02-09 20:54:39 CET