> Troy Simpson wrote:
> > For base-level support, we narrowed that down to apache 2.2x.
> > Do we really need to support all the python builds? They were
> > a great service from D.J. Heap, but now that we don't have
> > that, do we really need to ditch all windows builds? What we
> > could look at is a standard base-level windows build that most
> > people use. Personally, I just use a windows client, as do
> > many users - I don't even use the apache bindings, nor do many
> > windows users. We could leave specialised builds to teams who
> > want to support them which in theory would make the job at this
> > end much easier.
> >
> Well, I, for one, would need the Apache 2.2 bindings but I do
> not need the Python bindings at all, which I suspect most users
> don't either.
>
> So basic binaries with 2.2 support would be perfect for starters
>
As a windows user (and now admin) of Trac (trac.edgewall.org) I have
always appreciated the python bindings as a necessary part of the
package. It is one of the reasons that I was able to propose and am now
implementing Trac and subversion at work (which mandates windoze instead
of linux).
I looked at building what we needed from source but do not have time
allocated nor access to virtual machines (or even permission to install
all the requisite packages!) to be able to do it myself.
So, many thanks to D J Heap, Troy Simpson & co for all the hard work and
a plea to continue to support apache and bindings...
~ Mark C
Received on 2010-03-03 11:41:39 CET