You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net> on 2005/04/13 14:22:44 UTC
1.2.0-rc1 Windows binaries?
Brane, Jostein: were you guys planning to slam out Windows binary
packages for 1.2.0-rc1?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.2.0-rc1 Windows binaries?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Wednesday, April 13, 2005 7:38 PM +0200 "Jostein Chr. Andersen"
<jo...@josander.net> wrote:
> IMHO, I think that a build from the httpd-2.0.x branch is best -- at
> least if mod_dav|_svn will be Apache 2.0.54 compatible; if not then a
> delivery without modules.
FWIW, Sander's already tagged 2.0.54:
<http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/tags/2.0.54/>
I believe there are enough votes for 2.0.54 to be released on dev@httpd as
of now. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.2.0-rc1 Windows binaries?
Posted by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>.
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 18.16, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
...
> >I'm making an installer as soon I see some binaries. But no binaries
> >should come before Apache 2.0.54 AFAIK.
>
> That's not really a problem. I'll just roll the RC binaries either a)
> without mod_dav|_svn, or I'll link with the tip of the httpd-2.0.x
> branch (in which case most people won't be able to use those modules
> anyway. :)
IMHO, I think that a build from the httpd-2.0.x branch is best -- at
least if mod_dav|_svn will be Apache 2.0.54 compatible; if not then a
delivery without modules.
Jostein
--
http://www.josander.net/en/contact/
Re: 1.2.0-rc1 Windows binaries?
Posted by Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com>.
On 4/13/05, Toby Johnson <to...@etjohnson.us> wrote:> Branko Čibej wrote:> > > That's not really a problem. I'll just roll the RC binaries either a)> > without mod_dav|_svn, or I'll link with the tip of the httpd-2.0.x> > branch (in which case most people won't be able to use those modules> > anyway. :)> > So does this mean that modules compiled against 2.0.54 will be> binary-incompatible with previous versions?
On Windows, mod_dav_svn will have to be combined with a 2.0.54mod_dav, yes. I have no idea about any other incompatible changes inhttpd which would prevent this combination from working with olderhttpd-s.
bye,
Erik.
Re: 1.2.0-rc1 Windows binaries?
Posted by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>.
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 20.07, Toby Johnson wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > FWIW, the 2.0.54 mod_dav.so on Win32 may very well work on older
> > versions of httpd. It might be worth looking into: if so, we could
> > just tell people that they can replace the mod_dav.so with an
> > updated version or just upgrade to 2.0.54 entirely. -- justin
>
> That would be great. Jostein, do you think this is something your
> installer would be able to detect? Also, what do you use to create
> your installer, and are the project files (or whatever) available
> publicly?
The installer checks if a minimum required version of apache is there if
installed. If the version - in this case - is < 2.0.54 then the
installer will warn.
I use Inno Setup: http://www.jrsoftware.org/isinfo.php
And the project files is available (since 2002, around 0.12.0 I
think :-) :
/trunk/packages/win32-innosetup/
Jostein
--
http://www.josander.net/en/contact/
Re: 1.2.0-rc1 Windows binaries?
Posted by Toby Johnson <to...@etjohnson.us>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> FWIW, the 2.0.54 mod_dav.so on Win32 may very well work on older
> versions of httpd. It might be worth looking into: if so, we could
> just tell people that they can replace the mod_dav.so with an updated
> version or just upgrade to 2.0.54 entirely. -- justin
That would be great. Jostein, do you think this is something your
installer would be able to detect? Also, what do you use to create your
installer, and are the project files (or whatever) available publicly?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.2.0-rc1 Windows binaries?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On Wednesday, April 13, 2005 6:33 PM +0200 "Branko ?ibej" <br...@xbc.nu>
wrote:
> Unfortunately, yes. There's nothing we can do about that; 2.0.54 will
> (among other things) fix a bug where the Windows mod_dav.so didn't export
> all the symbols necessary to implement locking. Since there's no way to
> build a 1.2 server without locking support, an Apache upgrade will be
> necessary on Windows.
FWIW, the 2.0.54 mod_dav.so on Win32 may very well work on older versions
of httpd. It might be worth looking into: if so, we could just tell people
that they can replace the mod_dav.so with an updated version or just
upgrade to 2.0.54 entirely. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.2.0-rc1 Windows binaries?
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Toby Johnson wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> That's not really a problem. I'll just roll the RC binaries either a)
>> without mod_dav|_svn, or I'll link with the tip of the httpd-2.0.x
>> branch (in which case most people won't be able to use those modules
>> anyway. :)
>
>
> So does this mean that modules compiled against 2.0.54 will be
> binary-incompatible with previous versions?
Unfortunately, yes. There's nothing we can do about that; 2.0.54 will
(among other things) fix a bug where the Windows mod_dav.so didn't
export all the symbols necessary to implement locking. Since there's no
way to build a 1.2 server without locking support, an Apache upgrade
will be necessary on Windows.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.2.0-rc1 Windows binaries?
Posted by Toby Johnson <to...@etjohnson.us>.
Branko Čibej wrote:
> That's not really a problem. I'll just roll the RC binaries either a)
> without mod_dav|_svn, or I'll link with the tip of the httpd-2.0.x
> branch (in which case most people won't be able to use those modules
> anyway. :)
So does this mean that modules compiled against 2.0.54 will be
binary-incompatible with previous versions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.2.0-rc1 Windows binaries?
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
>On Wednesday 13 April 2005 16.22, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>
>
>>Brane, Jostein: were you guys planning to slam out Windows binary
>>packages for 1.2.0-rc1?
>>
>>
Oh yes, sure, absolutely. I'll just move to Mars with its slightly
longer day, shall I, then I'll have enough time.
Sorry... will do my best, etc.
>I'm making an installer as soon I see some binaries. But no binaries
>should come before Apache 2.0.54 AFAIK.
>
>
That's not really a problem. I'll just roll the RC binaries either a)
without mod_dav|_svn, or I'll link with the tip of the httpd-2.0.x
branch (in which case most people won't be able to use those modules
anyway. :)
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.2.0-rc1 Windows binaries?
Posted by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>.
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 16.22, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Brane, Jostein: were you guys planning to slam out Windows binary
> packages for 1.2.0-rc1?
I'm making an installer as soon I see some binaries. But no binaries
should come before Apache 2.0.54 AFAIK.
Jostein
--
http://www.josander.net/en/contact/