Branko Čibej wrote on Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 17:15:10 +0100:
> On 27.11.2013 17:09, Mark Phippard wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel_at_gmail.com
> > <mailto:nkadel_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Daniel Shahaf
> > <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name <mailto:d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>> wrote:
> > > Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote on Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 21:17:11 -0500:
> > >> I've gone ahead and updated, and casually tested, my published
> > RHEL 6
> > >> compatible RPM building tools with a new 1.8.5 tag at:
> > >>
> > >>
> > https://github.com/nkadel/subversion-1.8.x-srpm/tree/1.8.5-0.1
> > >
> > > Perhaps these should be linked to from
> > http://subversion.apache.org/packages?
> > I'd welcome that. They don't contain binary RPM's, partly because I'm
> > not in a good position to run a secure binary repository with GPG keys
> > and fully controlled build environments. But they're very useful RPM
> > building toolkits for developers, and I've sent notes to RHEL and
> > Fedora about issues I've found.. I've also submitted them to Repoforge
> > in the past: looks like time to update those rquests.
> > I think it would be very confusing to include this with our binary
> > packages. This is not a binary package so why would it belong on that
> > list?
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to add a section to INSTALL that points to
> > this along with appropriate instructions for using it? Even if that
> > just says to read the current README?
> Meh. Just remove "binary" from the page title and you're done.
While at it, we could also list the other known alternate build systems:
- AnkhSVN's svn build script
- TortoiseSVN's svn build script
Received on 2013-11-27 17:18:50 CET