On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 12:51 AM, Jeremy Whitlock <jcscoobyrs_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you think about me switching the packaging around for
> Subversion on OSX? (http://www.collab.net/downloads/community/) What
> I'd like to do is deliver Subversion as an Umbrella Framework
> (http://tinyurl.com/OSX-Framework-Anatomy) where each Subversion dep
> is its own nested Framework. Below is a small list of benefits:
>
> * Multiple versions of Subversion coexisting on the same box
> * The ability to build Subversion-based apps
> * Potentially smaller installation packages after the initial
> installer with dependencies is installed
> * Less obtrusive to Subversion's developers
>
> Now, the packaging of the binary and the functionality of the binary
> would not change. This would be seamless to the end user other than
> the ability to have multiple versions of Subversion installed at the
> same time. What do you guys think?
I am not sure the results would justify the effort. The benefit of a
framework would only be realized if several OSX Subversion clients
were going to use and share it. I am skeptical that would happen
unless they were all also going to agree to work against the binaries
provided by CollabNet. The Apple docs you linked to seemed to suggest
that using a Framework does not make sense unless there are going to
be applications build that use it. If it is just the command line
then it is unneeded overhead.
Those same docs also discourage the use of Umbrella Frameworks and
seem to claim that is not the way to go.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-10-07 14:59:21 CEST