Scott Palmer wrote:
>
> On 8-Jul-05, at 1:20 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> Mark Phippard wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Try to cut some slack. The Win32 binaries have been coming out on
>>> almost the same day as the official release of the source for a
>>> while now.
>>>
>> So they have. And all I have to say to anyone who can't wait for a
>> few days ubtil I find the time (usually between 2 and 4 a.m.) to
>> build the distro is, with great restraint, "build it yourself."
>> After all, what's a few days compared to the serveal weeks between
>> patch releases?
>
>
>
> Please don't assume that I have a complaint against the time you take
> to produce Win32 binaries. That is not my point, and I am thankful
> that you do it at all.
>
> I was simply expressing the possibility that the subversion team
> could officially include Win32 binaries, and perhaps Mac OS X
> binaries as part of the official release.. I only suggest it because
> I *assume* that building on Win32 and OS X is a requirement for them
> to sign-off on the source tarball, so logically the binaries have
> already been built.
Certainly the tarball gets tested (and therefore built) on several
platforms so that its tested before its released. However, I don't agree
that the project's policies about only providing source releases need
changing. As things stand now, binary releases for most platforms
(notably Windows and OS X) do get published within a few days of a
source release, and my point is that "a few days" vs. "at the same time
as" isn't worth the hassle.
I'd also mention that the step from "built and tested" to "packaged for
distribution" is not insignificant, at least on Windows (and I suspect
on other platforms, too).
> The current issue with ZLib, of which I don't know any of the
> details, could have been announced on the list as well, just to give
> the community an idea of what was going on.
Indeed, this was only mentioned on the dev@ list. I'll make an
announcement that the Win32 binaries are held up by ZLib.
> I would build it myself, but I attempted that with 1.1.0 and found
> that setting up a Windows machine to build subversion was extremely
> painful.. amounting to a wild goose chase of tracking down and
> building various other packages of which I knew nothing (Neon, APR,
> BDB, install Perl, Python, etc.). I don't need BDB support, so I
> suppose it isn't really that bad. I will tackle it again when I find
> the time. But it is certainly not standard practice for Windows and
> Mac users to have to compile software from source in order to use
> it. I know it is more common in the unix environment, but unix users
> are very different in terms of their expectations.
I was merely trying to say that I, personally, am not interested in
finding the time to cater to those (very few!) users who absolutely must
upgrade their Windows SVN clients the minute a source release has been
made. That's not the same as saying that Win users should build their
own binaries, of course, and I agree that it's not reasonable to expect
that they would.
(it's interesting, though beside the point that, in this particular
case, it's actually a good thing that I didn't build the distro sooner,
because the ZLib bug was announced just a few hours before I *did* build
them -- so I happily avoided the need to recall a released binary package.)
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jul 8 20:23:46 2005