Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind.
As to the "extract collabnet and repack" idea, I too am not sure if it
would be allowed
David Darj wrote:
> 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
>> need to support all the python builds? They were a great service from
>> 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.
>>> -----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>
>>>> 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
>>>> 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.
>>> Mark Phippard
Received on 2010-03-03 22:10:40 CET