You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@red-bean.com> on 2006/11/13 03:11:56 UTC
1.4.2 win32 binaries?
I noticed last night that his win32 1.4.2 binaries are in fact
downloadable from the easy-to-remember
subversion.tigris.org/downloads/ area, but aren't linked-to from the
traditional file-sharing area. Maybe the RM just forgot to add the
links? (I'd do it myself, but the downloads/ url isn't browseable, so
I don't know if D.J.Heap provided more than just one .zip?)
Side note: I find it a bit fishy that we've spent years telling
people that our posted win32 binaries (be they from Branko or D.J.)
are not 'official' or supported/endorsed by the project -- but then
starting with svn 1.4.0, we're now putting them in the special
downloads/ url right next to our officially-supported source releases.
Doesn't that sort of imply 'officialness'?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.4.2 win32 binaries?
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
David James wrote:
>> Side note: I find it a bit fishy that we've spent years telling
>> people that our posted win32 binaries (be they from Branko or D.J.)
>> are not 'official' or supported/endorsed by the project -- but then
>> starting with svn 1.4.0, we're now putting them in the special
>> downloads/ url right next to our officially-supported source releases.
>> Doesn't that sort of imply 'officialness'?
>
> +1. These binaries (built by D.J. Heap) are official and we should
> treat them as such. We should also update the release announcement to
> link to these binaries, so that folks who are downloading Subversion
> 1.4.2 for Windows will know where to look.
Says who!?
If we're going to go through all the work of testing and verifying our
source releases which *can* be compared with our repository to detect
packager-slipped-in tweaks, how much more important is it that we do the
same level testing for binary releases for which no such comparison is
available?
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: 1.4.2 win32 binaries?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 11/13/06, John Szakmeister <jo...@szakmeister.net> wrote:
> > On a slightly different note. How is the windows binary svn built?
> > Is there a gcc for windows that does not require cygwin lib or some
> > other runtime libs. The current svn binary does not require any special
> > runtime libs.
>
> It compiles under visual studio (6 or .NET, IIRC).
It's slightly less painful to build with non-VC6 only in trunk. =) -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.4.2 win32 binaries?
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@red-bean.com>.
On 11/13/06, James Courtier-Dutton <Ja...@superbug.co.uk> wrote:
> Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> > Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> >> On 11/13/06, David James <ja...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1. These binaries (built by D.J. Heap) are official and we should
> >>> treat them as such.
> >> I think you misunderstand me. :-) I'm saying that it's a *bad* thing
> >> that we've started endorsing and supporting "official binaries". This
> >> represents a big policy change, breaking with 5 years of tradition.
>
> On a slightly different note. How is the windows binary svn built?
> Is there a gcc for windows that does not require cygwin lib or some
> other runtime libs. The current svn binary does not require any special
> runtime libs.
>
We had a whole discussion about this at the summit, remember? Trying
to decide which win32 compliers to support? :-)
i think most of us use VC6. That's what our INSTALL instructions assume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.4.2 win32 binaries?
Posted by John Szakmeister <jo...@szakmeister.net>.
[snip]
> On a slightly different note. How is the windows binary svn built?
> Is there a gcc for windows that does not require cygwin lib or some
> other runtime libs. The current svn binary does not require any special
> runtime libs.
It compiles under visual studio (6 or .NET, IIRC).
-John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.4.2 win32 binaries?
Posted by James Courtier-Dutton <Ja...@superbug.co.uk>.
Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>> On 11/13/06, David James <ja...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> +1. These binaries (built by D.J. Heap) are official and we should
>>> treat them as such.
>> I think you misunderstand me. :-) I'm saying that it's a *bad* thing
>> that we've started endorsing and supporting "official binaries". This
>> represents a big policy change, breaking with 5 years of tradition.
On a slightly different note. How is the windows binary svn built?
Is there a gcc for windows that does not require cygwin lib or some
other runtime libs. The current svn binary does not require any special
runtime libs.
James
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.4.2 win32 binaries?
Posted by Martin Furter <mf...@rola.ch>.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>> On 11/13/06, David James <ja...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> +1. These binaries (built by D.J. Heap) are official and we should
>>> treat them as such.
>>
>> I think you misunderstand me. :-) I'm saying that it's a *bad* thing
>> that we've started endorsing and supporting "official binaries". This
>> represents a big policy change, breaking with 5 years of tradition.
>> Our downloads page has always said:
>>
>> "The Subversion project does not officially endorse or maintain any
>> binary packages of the Subversion software. However, volunteers have
>> created binary packages for different distributions and platforms, and
>> as a convenience, we maintain a list of links to them here."
> Users of Subversion on Windows already consider those binaries
> (including the installer) as official, based on:
> a) The svn binaries for windows can be downloaded from the official svn
> website
> b) They are created by full members of the svn development community
> c) 99% of the Windows subversion users who use the command line client
> don't build it from source, but use these binaries.
I guess most subversion users install binary packages, not only Windows
users. On my debian machines I don't build svn anymore since a long time.
d) The packages from subversion.tigris.org are the only win32 binaries of
the commandline client I know of. Most other OS have svn binaries
included.
Just my 2 cents.
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.4.2 win32 binaries?
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@red-bean.com>.
On 11/14/06, Tim Hill <dr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Understood, and agreed, as far as it goes. But I do think the
> subversion team needs to maintain a up-to-date list of "quasi-
> official" (? "blessed" ?) builds. Posit: I want to use Subversion but
> cannot/will not/should not do my own build. Where do I go for
> binaries? Google can lead me to any number of sites. I choose one:
> but it's an out-of-date build, or has private "features" that the
> person doing the build wanted to hack in (and never got around to
> testing...). How do I determine this "bad" build from a "good" one?
I think we've already been doing this. Our 'downloads' page is about
as much blessing as we give to any particular build. "Here are some
binaries that we think should work for you, but don't ask us for tech
support on them."
>
> I agree that the svn team cannot afford the time to setup a formal
> build/test lab, but I do think that they should be a bit more pro-
> active in pointing people to the semi-blessed binaries. Care in
> point: the Mac builds referenced on the downloads page are now way
> out of date (2-3 back-revved).
I think the only sin going on here is that we've stopped being
diligent about updating our downloads page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.4.2 win32 binaries?
Posted by Tim Hill <dr...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 14, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
>
>> If the answer is *no*, then who/what entity is going
>> to take up the slack and maintain these builds?
>>
>
> I thought the prior system was working just fine. For linux distros,
> there were volunteer maintainers who always made sure the latest .rpm
> or .deb got into the proper distribution systems. For Mac, we've
> always had one or two volunteers who make nice .dmg binaries available
> on their personal website. For Windows, we've always had brane (or
> djh) make a private build and upload a package or two.
>
Understood, and agreed, as far as it goes. But I do think the
subversion team needs to maintain a up-to-date list of "quasi-
official" (? "blessed" ?) builds. Posit: I want to use Subversion but
cannot/will not/should not do my own build. Where do I go for
binaries? Google can lead me to any number of sites. I choose one:
but it's an out-of-date build, or has private "features" that the
person doing the build wanted to hack in (and never got around to
testing...). How do I determine this "bad" build from a "good" one?
I agree that the svn team cannot afford the time to setup a formal
build/test lab, but I do think that they should be a bit more pro-
active in pointing people to the semi-blessed binaries. Care in
point: the Mac builds referenced on the downloads page are now way
out of date (2-3 back-revved). I was able to locate a Mac build at
another site (Martin Ott's), and after careful checking it turns out
Martin does a great job ... but I had to tread carefully before I was
comfortable (can you spell "virus"?).
--Tim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.4.2 win32 binaries?
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@red-bean.com>.
On 11/14/06, Tim Hill <dr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> IMHO, the broader point is: does the svn community expect that, as a
> pre-requisite for *using* Subversion, you should be able to *build* it?
Gosh no. We don't expect that of linux or mac users! We don't expect
it from windows users either. Users depend on 'maintainers' to
release binaries for their OS.
> If the answer is *no*, then who/what entity is going
> to take up the slack and maintain these builds?
>
I thought the prior system was working just fine. For linux distros,
there were volunteer maintainers who always made sure the latest .rpm
or .deb got into the proper distribution systems. For Mac, we've
always had one or two volunteers who make nice .dmg binaries available
on their personal website. For Windows, we've always had brane (or
djh) make a private build and upload a package or two.
For all of these cases, our policy has still always been plastered on
our downloads page: "these are binary releases from volunteers. If
you want support for them, contact the volunteers, not the project."
In the case of Windows binaries, yes, it just so happened that brane
was using tigris.org itself to host the package. That is *not* the
same as "the project is supporting these binaries", though I can
totally understand the confusion, and why people would conclude that.
I have to say, I personally don't believe our project has the
energy/focus/bandwidth to start building and testing and signing
binaries for each OS. I think the current system of volunteers has
been working great. What I'd like to see happen: stop distributing
the Windows binaries on subversion.tigris.org, and put them on a
separate website. (Maybe even on red-bean or something?) That would
certainly disambiguate the misconception, and keep our project from
taking on more responsibility we can't handle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.4.2 win32 binaries?
Posted by Tim Hill <dr...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 13, 2006, at 12:45 PM, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
>>
> Users of Subversion on Windows already consider those binaries
> (including the installer) as official, based on:
> a) The svn binaries for windows can be downloaded from the official
> svn
> website
> b) They are created by full members of the svn development community
> c) 99% of the Windows subversion users who use the command line client
> don't build it from source, but use these binaries.
>
IMHO, the broader point is: does the svn community expect that, as a
pre-requisite for *using* Subversion, you should be able to *build*
it? If the answer is *yes*, then frankly the potential user community
must be significantly dimished. If the answer is *no*, then who/what
entity is going to take up the slack and maintain these builds?
Just my 2c worth.
--Tim
Re: 1.4.2 win32 binaries?
Posted by Lieven Govaerts <sv...@mobsol.be>.
Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On 11/13/06, David James <ja...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote:
>
>> +1. These binaries (built by D.J. Heap) are official and we should
>> treat them as such.
>
> I think you misunderstand me. :-) I'm saying that it's a *bad* thing
> that we've started endorsing and supporting "official binaries". This
> represents a big policy change, breaking with 5 years of tradition.
> Our downloads page has always said:
>
> "The Subversion project does not officially endorse or maintain any
> binary packages of the Subversion software. However, volunteers have
> created binary packages for different distributions and platforms, and
> as a convenience, we maintain a list of links to them here."
Users of Subversion on Windows already consider those binaries
(including the installer) as official, based on:
a) The svn binaries for windows can be downloaded from the official svn
website
b) They are created by full members of the svn development community
c) 99% of the Windows subversion users who use the command line client
don't build it from source, but use these binaries.
I don't think there's a reason why we should have official binaries for
Windows, but not for Mac or Linux. In the end, people using svn binaries
just want to download them from someone they trust, be it a distribution
maintainer, as part of a separate application (TSVN) or from a
commercial packager. For the windows binaries, that happen to be some of
the same people also working on the actual source code.
Given the fact that almost none of the Windows people will build
Subversion from source, I do feel that we should test the quality of the
Windows binaries thoroughly before they are released to the public. If
people have problems with the svn binaries, they will turn to the
Subversion project for support.
If you feel that the policy of not endorsing binary packages should not
be changed, then we should definitely put more space between the
Subversion project and the binaries. What about creating a separate
project page svn-packages.tigris.org, where package maintainers have a
repository to maintain packaging scripts, a place to store the binaries
etc? That way we can cleanup our downloads page, while at the same time
providing our users one single place to download binaries from.
Lieven
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.4.2 win32 binaries?
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@softlanding.com>.
sussman@gmail.com wrote on 11/13/2006 08:14:40 AM:
> (Are we going to start rolling official binary packages for Mac and
> various linux rpms as well?)
Yes please! :)
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.4.2 win32 binaries?
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@red-bean.com>.
On 11/13/06, David James <ja...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote:
> > Side note: I find it a bit fishy that we've spent years telling
> > people that our posted win32 binaries (be they from Branko or D.J.)
> > are not 'official' or supported/endorsed by the project -- but then
> > starting with svn 1.4.0, we're now putting them in the special
> > downloads/ url right next to our officially-supported source releases.
> > Doesn't that sort of imply 'officialness'?
>
> +1. These binaries (built by D.J. Heap) are official and we should
> treat them as such.
I think you misunderstand me. :-) I'm saying that it's a *bad* thing
that we've started endorsing and supporting "official binaries". This
represents a big policy change, breaking with 5 years of tradition.
Our downloads page has always said:
"The Subversion project does not officially endorse or maintain any
binary packages of the Subversion software. However, volunteers have
created binary packages for different distributions and platforms, and
as a convenience, we maintain a list of links to them here."
Was this policy change ever discussed? Did I miss this decision?
(Are we going to start rolling official binary packages for Mac and
various linux rpms as well?)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.4.2 win32 binaries?
Posted by David James <ja...@cs.toronto.edu>.
On 11/12/06, Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@red-bean.com> wrote:
> I noticed last night that his win32 1.4.2 binaries are in fact
> downloadable from the easy-to-remember
> subversion.tigris.org/downloads/ area, but aren't linked-to from the
> traditional file-sharing area. Maybe the RM just forgot to add the
> links? (I'd do it myself, but the downloads/ url isn't browseable, so
> I don't know if D.J.Heap provided more than just one .zip?)
Here's a list of the Windows binaries which were uploaded to
subversion.tigris.org/downloads:
svn-python-1.4.2.win32-py2.3.exe
svn-python-1.4.2.win32-py2.4.exe
svn-win32-1.4.2.zip
svn-win32-1.4.2_dev.zip
svn-win32-1.4.2_javahl.zip
svn-win32-1.4.2_pdb.zip
svn-win32-1.4.2_pl.zip
svn-win32-1.4.2_py23.zip
svn-win32-1.4.2_py24.zip
> Side note: I find it a bit fishy that we've spent years telling
> people that our posted win32 binaries (be they from Branko or D.J.)
> are not 'official' or supported/endorsed by the project -- but then
> starting with svn 1.4.0, we're now putting them in the special
> downloads/ url right next to our officially-supported source releases.
> Doesn't that sort of imply 'officialness'?
+1. These binaries (built by D.J. Heap) are official and we should
treat them as such. We should also update the release announcement to
link to these binaries, so that folks who are downloading Subversion
1.4.2 for Windows will know where to look.
Cheers,
David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org