Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> писал в своём письме Tue, 09 Feb 2010
22:54:05 +0300:
> 2010/2/9 Роман Донченко <DXDragon_at_yandex.ru>:
>> Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> писал в своём письме 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. Also, 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... --
>>>> 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.
Yeah, sorry, must've confused that with APR-iconv. libintl is something I
can live without. 8=]
Received on 2010-02-09 21:23:35 CET