On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I also whish you (or anyone who tries to build subversion on Windows)
> good luck. It can be done, but it isn't easy. I for one spent a lot of
> time getting it to work on my machine, just to experiment with some
> simple things. Now I have a working build setup, but I wouldn't
> consider it standard by any means (and don't have more time to invest
> in standardizing this build).
> I actually started from Daniel Shahaf's Makefile, which he mentioned
> above. See my experiences here:
I do not want to jinx myself for the next time I have to setup a new
system, but I do not find it that difficult. I have been building SVN
on Windows for years and have set it up on a number of new systems. I
usually get it all working right the first time now.
It is certainly a "pain in the ***" but it is not that hard. The
worst part is just that building SVN means building a whole lot of
other software first and tracking down dependencies for those build
processes like Perl/Python that you might not otherwise have
Personally, I would steer people away from volunteering for this task
because I know what a pain it is. Building the basic binaries is not
too hard, but doing it for all of the bindings and dealing with things
like providing different versions of the binaries built against
different Python versions or Apache versions gets to be a bit much.
Not to mention some of the variants in building in support for some of
the different SSL and authentication packages. These are basically
the reasons I cannot see this project ever officially supporting any
specific binary. It should really be the maintainer of the binary
that does the support because there are too many factors involved.
Received on 2010-03-02 22:54:54 CET