[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows

From: David Darj <zid_at_alagazam.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:28:21 +0100

My plan was to build (for a start) what's included in the

Win32 binaries (svn, svnadmin, svnserve, svnmucc, etc...) both dor BDB
and FSFS, including OpenSSL
Modules for Apache 2.2.x (mod_dav_svn.so, mod_authz_svn.so)

in short: what's needed for building the Windows msi installer.


On 2010-03-03 10:50, 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.
> Regards,
> Troy
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Phippard [mailto:markphip_at_gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 7:54 AM
>> To: Johan Corveleyn
>> Cc: Daniel Shahaf; users_at_subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
>> 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:
>>> http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2009-09/0305.shtml
>> 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
>> installed.
>> 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.
>> --
>> Thanks
>> Mark Phippard
>> http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on 2010-03-03 21:22:14 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.