subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Troy Simpson" <>
Subject RE: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Date Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:50:51 GMT
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.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Phippard []
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 7:54 AM
> To: Johan Corveleyn
> Cc: Daniel Shahaf;
> Subject: Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Johan Corveleyn <>
> 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
> 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

View raw message