You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Bojan Resnik <re...@gmail.com> on 2010/02/25 10:19:30 UTC
Tigris binary packages for Windows
Hi,
We have a custom server setup and we have been using Tigris.org binaries for
Windows. The latest version there, however, is 1.6.6.
Will there be Tigris.org binary packages for Windows for Subversion 1.6.9
and later? Or perhaps an equivalent of these packages, with full server,
client and bindings but without installers?
--
Bojan Resnik
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Jan Hendrik <li...@gmail.com>.
Concerning Re: Tigris binary packages for Wind
Olivier Sannier wrote on 3 Mar 2010, 11:27, at least in part:
> 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.
> >
> Well, I, for one, would need the Apache 2.2 bindings but I do not need
> the Python bindings at all, which I suspect most users don't either.
> So basic binaries with 2.2 support would be perfect for starters
Seconded. Apache 2.2 is a must, language bindings are not
needed here, nor OpenSSL. But I would highly prefer to continue
with BDB repository (which I understand from previous postings is
one of the harder things of the complex build process unfortunately).
JH
---------------------------------------
Freedom quote:
Live free or die.
-- New Hampshire State Motto
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Konstantin Kolinko <kn...@gmail.com>.
2010/3/3 Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>:
>
>> I used Tigris binaries before, but since 1.6.9 I am using the
>> Collabnet ones. I wish those were available as a zip archive (or with
>> a command to unpack the installer), though.
>
> Any reason that is critical to you? The installer does little more
> than unpack to a location and add to PATH. You can add /S to command
> line to run it silent as well as specify the location. I doubt the
> small install UI is the problem though.
>
It is not critical. I am quite happy with what I already have for the price
(many thanks for providing these for free).
It is just that I already have HTTPD installed and configured, and the only
HTTPD bits what I need from the bundle are mod_dav_svn and mod_authz_svn.
Best regards,
Konstantin Kolinko
RE: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by "Cooke, Mark" <ma...@siemens.com>.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Darj [mailto:zid@alagazam.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 27 April 2010 6:26 AM
> > To: Cooke, Mark
> > Cc: users@subversion.apache.org; Troy Simpson
> > Subject: Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
> >
> > On 2010-04-26 13:58, Cooke, Mark wrote:
> > > Hi David, list,
> > >
> > >
> > >>>>> On 2010-04-22 17:06, Cooke, Mark wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I am resurrecting this thread to ask if anyone has come
> > >>>>> forward to volunteer time and/or effort to resurrect the
> > >>>>> windoze binaries as we are still on 1.6.6 against 1.6.11
> > >>>>> announced a few days ago.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> From: David Darj [mailto:zid@alagazam.net]
> > >>>> Sent: 22 April 2010 21:21
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have built both 1.6.9 and 1.6.11
> > >>>> They are available on my webpage http://alagazam.net
> > >>>> You (and anyone else) is welcome to download and use it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The reason I've not announced the release in this (users)
> > >>>> list is that I've hoped some people reading the dev list
> > >>>> (where I did announce it) to download and test it first so
> > >>>> I know my build environment is okey.
> > >>>> As the web page says all test on subversion itself is running
> > >>>> ok., but the bindings has not been tested.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>> On 2010-04-23 10:29, Cooke, Mark wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> You star! Thanks very much. I will do some testing with
> > >>> apache 2.2 on windoze using mod_dav_svn and python bindings
> > >>> (to Trac using mod_wsgi) and report back...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> From: David Darj [mailto:zid@alagazam.net]
> > >> Sent: 23 April 2010 18:08
> > >>
> > >> Thanx that would be gr8.
> > >>
> > > So far so good. Minor points but the ".11" package readme still
> > refers
> > > to ".9"
> > Oh...thats my fault missing to change the version number in
> some spots.
> > I think I was focused on getting the dependecies versions right.
> > > and some of the files have a different name format from the
> > > tigris packages, e.g.:
> > >
> > > o svn-python-1.6.6.win32-py2.6.exe
> > > o svn-win32-1.6.11_py.zip
> > >
> > > ...although I realise one is an installer and the other just the
> > files.
> > >
> > You're right, the first one is an installer and the second
> one only the
> > files.
> > If you look at tigris download page a bit further down you see the
> > corresponding zip-file there as well.
> > I've just havn't looked into byinding these installers.
> > > Actually, I am unsure about installing the latter, can I just copy
> > the
> > > files over the ones I already have installed or do I need to tell
> > python
> > > about it somehow (probably OT for this list I guess,
> perhaps Troy is
> > > listening)?
> > >
> > I'm not a python programmer so I don't really know how to
> install this
> > package (thats why the bindings are not tested).
> > But I suppose you can just extract the file over the old ones.
> > Actually it's not Troy that used to build the python
> installers, it was
> > DJ Heap, who also used to build the binaries.
> > Maybe he has some info on this matter.
> > >
> > >>> Out of interest, did you use VC6 or VC2008 to compile
> (there were
> > >>> suggestions earlier in the thread that there might be some
> > potential
> > >>> issues using VC2008 binaries against the official apache build
> > which
> > >>>
> > > I
> > >
> > >>> am required to use here):
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> It's built using the good old VC6 like D.J Heap previously did.
> > >> That way no runtime-dll:s (msvcr*) needs to be
> distributed with it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Excellent, thanks again.
> > >
> > >
> > >>> Also, did you hook up with Troy about the installers ~ I
> > >>> assume that he would be able to put them on tigris at least
> > >>> until we get a new home on apache:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> I havn't had any contact with troy, but this mail is cc:d to
> > >> him as well. So if he is reading it it would be great if he
> > >> (or anyone else) want to put the there.
> > >>
> > >>
> > > It would be really great if Troy could pick up the baton
> here as that
> > > would negate my python install issues.
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > >
> > > ~ mark c
> > >
> >
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Troy Simpson [mailto:troy@ebswift.com]
> Sent: 09 May 2010 23:47
>
> Looks like we're getting closer to official binaries then...
> As far as the python bindings installer goes, that's something
> I know nothing about. I have new code for the windows WiX-based
> installer, but thus far haven't had any commit access to place
> the code back in. The WiX code in the repository has 'issues'.
>
> Regards,
>
> Troy
>
I will try to investigate the python issue but its probably not going to
be this week *sigh*
~ mark c
RE: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Troy Simpson <tr...@ebswift.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Darj [mailto:zid@alagazam.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 April 2010 6:26 AM
> To: Cooke, Mark
> Cc: users@subversion.apache.org; Troy Simpson
> Subject: Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
>
> On 2010-04-26 13:58, Cooke, Mark wrote:
> > Hi David, list,
> >
> >
> >>>>> On 2010-04-22 17:06, Cooke, Mark wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am resurrecting this thread to ask if anyone has come
> >>>>> forward to volunteer time and/or effort to resurrect the
> >>>>> windoze binaries as we are still on 1.6.6 against 1.6.11
> >>>>> announced a few days ago.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> From: David Darj [mailto:zid@alagazam.net]
> >>>> Sent: 22 April 2010 21:21
> >>>>
> >>>> I have built both 1.6.9 and 1.6.11
> >>>> They are available on my webpage http://alagazam.net
> >>>> You (and anyone else) is welcome to download and use it.
> >>>>
> >>>> The reason I've not announced the release in this (users)
> >>>> list is that I've hoped some people reading the dev list
> >>>> (where I did announce it) to download and test it first so
> >>>> I know my build environment is okey.
> >>>> As the web page says all test on subversion itself is running
> >>>> ok., but the bindings has not been tested.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> On 2010-04-23 10:29, Cooke, Mark wrote:
> >>>
> >>> You star! Thanks very much. I will do some testing with
> >>> apache 2.2 on windoze using mod_dav_svn and python bindings
> >>> (to Trac using mod_wsgi) and report back...
> >>>
> >>>
> >> From: David Darj [mailto:zid@alagazam.net]
> >> Sent: 23 April 2010 18:08
> >>
> >> Thanx that would be gr8.
> >>
> > So far so good. Minor points but the ".11" package readme still
> refers
> > to ".9"
> Oh...thats my fault missing to change the version number in some spots.
> I think I was focused on getting the dependecies versions right.
> > and some of the files have a different name format from the
> > tigris packages, e.g.:
> >
> > o svn-python-1.6.6.win32-py2.6.exe
> > o svn-win32-1.6.11_py.zip
> >
> > ...although I realise one is an installer and the other just the
> files.
> >
> You're right, the first one is an installer and the second one only the
> files.
> If you look at tigris download page a bit further down you see the
> corresponding zip-file there as well.
> I've just havn't looked into byinding these installers.
> > Actually, I am unsure about installing the latter, can I just copy
> the
> > files over the ones I already have installed or do I need to tell
> python
> > about it somehow (probably OT for this list I guess, perhaps Troy is
> > listening)?
> >
> I'm not a python programmer so I don't really know how to install this
> package (thats why the bindings are not tested).
> But I suppose you can just extract the file over the old ones.
> Actually it's not Troy that used to build the python installers, it was
> DJ Heap, who also used to build the binaries.
> Maybe he has some info on this matter.
> >
> >>> Out of interest, did you use VC6 or VC2008 to compile (there were
> >>> suggestions earlier in the thread that there might be some
> potential
> >>> issues using VC2008 binaries against the official apache build
> which
> >>>
> > I
> >
> >>> am required to use here):
> >>>
> >>>
> >> It's built using the good old VC6 like D.J Heap previously did.
> >> That way no runtime-dll:s (msvcr*) needs to be distributed with it.
> >>
> >>
> > Excellent, thanks again.
> >
> >
> >>> Also, did you hook up with Troy about the installers ~ I
> >>> assume that he would be able to put them on tigris at least
> >>> until we get a new home on apache:
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I havn't had any contact with troy, but this mail is cc:d to
> >> him as well. So if he is reading it it would be great if he
> >> (or anyone else) want to put the there.
> >>
> >>
> > It would be really great if Troy could pick up the baton here as that
> > would negate my python install issues.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > ~ mark c
> >
>
Looks like we're getting closer to official binaries then... As far as the
python bindings installer goes, that's something I know nothing about. I
have new code for the windows WiX-based installer, but thus far haven't had
any commit access to place the code back in. The WiX code in the repository
has 'issues'.
Regards,
Troy
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by David Darj <zi...@alagazam.net>.
On 2010-04-26 13:58, Cooke, Mark wrote:
> Hi David, list,
>
>
>>>>> On 2010-04-22 17:06, Cooke, Mark wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am resurrecting this thread to ask if anyone has come
>>>>> forward to volunteer time and/or effort to resurrect the
>>>>> windoze binaries as we are still on 1.6.6 against 1.6.11
>>>>> announced a few days ago.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> From: David Darj [mailto:zid@alagazam.net]
>>>> Sent: 22 April 2010 21:21
>>>>
>>>> I have built both 1.6.9 and 1.6.11
>>>> They are available on my webpage http://alagazam.net
>>>> You (and anyone else) is welcome to download and use it.
>>>>
>>>> The reason I've not announced the release in this (users)
>>>> list is that I've hoped some people reading the dev list
>>>> (where I did announce it) to download and test it first so
>>>> I know my build environment is okey.
>>>> As the web page says all test on subversion itself is running
>>>> ok., but the bindings has not been tested.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> On 2010-04-23 10:29, Cooke, Mark wrote:
>>>
>>> You star! Thanks very much. I will do some testing with
>>> apache 2.2 on windoze using mod_dav_svn and python bindings
>>> (to Trac using mod_wsgi) and report back...
>>>
>>>
>> From: David Darj [mailto:zid@alagazam.net]
>> Sent: 23 April 2010 18:08
>>
>> Thanx that would be gr8.
>>
> So far so good. Minor points but the ".11" package readme still refers
> to ".9"
Oh...thats my fault missing to change the version number in some spots.
I think I was focused on getting the dependecies versions right.
> and some of the files have a different name format from the
> tigris packages, e.g.:
>
> o svn-python-1.6.6.win32-py2.6.exe
> o svn-win32-1.6.11_py.zip
>
> ...although I realise one is an installer and the other just the files.
>
You're right, the first one is an installer and the second one only the
files.
If you look at tigris download page a bit further down you see the
corresponding zip-file there as well.
I've just havn't looked into byinding these installers.
> Actually, I am unsure about installing the latter, can I just copy the
> files over the ones I already have installed or do I need to tell python
> about it somehow (probably OT for this list I guess, perhaps Troy is
> listening)?
>
I'm not a python programmer so I don't really know how to install this
package (thats why the bindings are not tested).
But I suppose you can just extract the file over the old ones.
Actually it's not Troy that used to build the python installers, it was
DJ Heap, who also used to build the binaries.
Maybe he has some info on this matter.
>
>>> Out of interest, did you use VC6 or VC2008 to compile (there were
>>> suggestions earlier in the thread that there might be some potential
>>> issues using VC2008 binaries against the official apache build which
>>>
> I
>
>>> am required to use here):
>>>
>>>
>> It's built using the good old VC6 like D.J Heap previously did.
>> That way no runtime-dll:s (msvcr*) needs to be distributed with it.
>>
>>
> Excellent, thanks again.
>
>
>>> Also, did you hook up with Troy about the installers ~ I
>>> assume that he would be able to put them on tigris at least
>>> until we get a new home on apache:
>>>
>>>
>> I havn't had any contact with troy, but this mail is cc:d to
>> him as well. So if he is reading it it would be great if he
>> (or anyone else) want to put the there.
>>
>>
> It would be really great if Troy could pick up the baton here as that
> would negate my python install issues.
>
> All the best,
>
> ~ mark c
>
RE: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by "Cooke, Mark" <ma...@siemens.com>.
Hi David, list,
>>>> On 2010-04-22 17:06, Cooke, Mark wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am resurrecting this thread to ask if anyone has come
>>>> forward to volunteer time and/or effort to resurrect the
>>>> windoze binaries as we are still on 1.6.6 against 1.6.11
>>>> announced a few days ago.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> From: David Darj [mailto:zid@alagazam.net]
>>> Sent: 22 April 2010 21:21
>>>
>>> I have built both 1.6.9 and 1.6.11
>>> They are available on my webpage http://alagazam.net
>>> You (and anyone else) is welcome to download and use it.
>>>
>>> The reason I've not announced the release in this (users)
>>> list is that I've hoped some people reading the dev list
>>> (where I did announce it) to download and test it first so
>>> I know my build environment is okey.
>>> As the web page says all test on subversion itself is running
>>> ok., but the bindings has not been tested.
>>>
>> On 2010-04-23 10:29, Cooke, Mark wrote:
>>
>> You star! Thanks very much. I will do some testing with
>> apache 2.2 on windoze using mod_dav_svn and python bindings
>> (to Trac using mod_wsgi) and report back...
>>
> From: David Darj [mailto:zid@alagazam.net]
> Sent: 23 April 2010 18:08
>
> Thanx that would be gr8.
So far so good. Minor points but the ".11" package readme still refers
to ".9" and some of the files have a different name format from the
tigris packages, e.g.:
o svn-python-1.6.6.win32-py2.6.exe
o svn-win32-1.6.11_py.zip
...although I realise one is an installer and the other just the files.
Actually, I am unsure about installing the latter, can I just copy the
files over the ones I already have installed or do I need to tell python
about it somehow (probably OT for this list I guess, perhaps Troy is
listening)?
>> Out of interest, did you use VC6 or VC2008 to compile (there were
>> suggestions earlier in the thread that there might be some potential
>> issues using VC2008 binaries against the official apache build which
I
>> am required to use here):
>>
> It's built using the good old VC6 like D.J Heap previously did.
> That way no runtime-dll:s (msvcr*) needs to be distributed with it.
>
Excellent, thanks again.
>> Also, did you hook up with Troy about the installers ~ I
>> assume that he would be able to put them on tigris at least
>> until we get a new home on apache:
>>
> I havn't had any contact with troy, but this mail is cc:d to
> him as well. So if he is reading it it would be great if he
> (or anyone else) want to put the there.
>
It would be really great if Troy could pick up the baton here as that
would negate my python install issues.
All the best,
~ mark c
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by David Darj <zi...@alagazam.net>.
On 2010-04-23 10:29, Cooke, Mark wrote:
>>> On 2010-04-22 17:06, Cooke, Mark wrote:
>>>
>>> I am resurrecting this thread to ask if anyone has come
>>> forward to volunteer time and/or effort to resurrect the
>>> windoze binaries as we are still on 1.6.6 against 1.6.11
>>> announced a few days ago.
>>>
>>>
>> From: David Darj [mailto:zid@alagazam.net]
>> Sent: 22 April 2010 21:21
>>
>> I have built both 1.6.9 and 1.6.11
>> They are available on my webpage http://alagazam.net
>> You (and anyone else) is welcome to download and use it.
>>
>> The reason I've not announced the release in this (users)
>> list is that I've hoped some people reading the dev list
>> (where I did announce it) to download and test it first so
>> I know my build environment is okey.
>> As the web page says all test on subversion itself is running
>> ok., but the bindings has not been tested.
>>
>>
> You star! Thanks very much. I will do some testing with apache 2.2 on
> windoze using mod_dav_svn and python bindings (to Trac using mod_wsgi)
> and report back...
>
>
Thanx that would be gr8.
> Out of interest, did you use VC6 or VC2008 to compile (there were
> suggestions earlier in the thread that there might be some potential
> issues using VC2008 binaries against the official apache build which I
> am required to use here):
>
>
It's built using the good old VC6 like D.J Heap previously did.
That way no runtime-dll:s (msvcr*) needs to be distributed with it.
>> From: Mark Phippard [mailto:markphip@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 03 March 2010 14:27
>> One other "pain" I thought of is that ideally the binaries
>> should be built using MSVC 6.0 (I am assuming DJ has not
>> changed that). Since the httpd binaries are built using that
>> you can have problems if a newer Visual Studio is used for
>> mod_dav_svn. You also have to deal with distributing the MS
>> runtime libraries if a newer version is used.
>>
> Also, did you hook up with Troy about the installers ~ I assume that he
> would be able to put them on tigris at least until we get a new home on
> apache:
>
>
I havn't had any contact with troy, but this mail is cc:d to him as well.
So if he is reading it it would be great if he (or anyone else) want to
put the there.
>> From: Troy Simpson [mailto:troy@ebswift.com]
>> Sent: 02 March 2010 02:45
>>
>> I can still build the installer, but I have never built
>> binaries. The installer code in the repository is NOT the
>> latest code. I had lost commit access for a time during the
>> transition and by the time I got that access back there are
>> no more binaries, so it has been pointless to continue
>> development. If someone could produce binaries I could get
>> the installer back on track, otherwise it's not worth
>> spending any time on if the project will not support (as in
>> supply) windows binaries.
>>
> ~ mark c
>
/David
RE: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by "Cooke, Mark" <ma...@siemens.com>.
>> On 2010-04-22 17:06, Cooke, Mark wrote:
>>
>> I am resurrecting this thread to ask if anyone has come
>> forward to volunteer time and/or effort to resurrect the
>> windoze binaries as we are still on 1.6.6 against 1.6.11
>> announced a few days ago.
>>
> From: David Darj [mailto:zid@alagazam.net]
> Sent: 22 April 2010 21:21
>
> I have built both 1.6.9 and 1.6.11
> They are available on my webpage http://alagazam.net
> You (and anyone else) is welcome to download and use it.
>
> The reason I've not announced the release in this (users)
> list is that I've hoped some people reading the dev list
> (where I did announce it) to download and test it first so
> I know my build environment is okey.
> As the web page says all test on subversion itself is running
> ok., but the bindings has not been tested.
>
You star! Thanks very much. I will do some testing with apache 2.2 on
windoze using mod_dav_svn and python bindings (to Trac using mod_wsgi)
and report back...
Out of interest, did you use VC6 or VC2008 to compile (there were
suggestions earlier in the thread that there might be some potential
issues using VC2008 binaries against the official apache build which I
am required to use here):
> From: Mark Phippard [mailto:markphip@gmail.com]
> Sent: 03 March 2010 14:27
> One other "pain" I thought of is that ideally the binaries
> should be built using MSVC 6.0 (I am assuming DJ has not
> changed that). Since the httpd binaries are built using that
> you can have problems if a newer Visual Studio is used for
> mod_dav_svn. You also have to deal with distributing the MS
> runtime libraries if a newer version is used.
Also, did you hook up with Troy about the installers ~ I assume that he
would be able to put them on tigris at least until we get a new home on
apache:
> From: Troy Simpson [mailto:troy@ebswift.com]
> Sent: 02 March 2010 02:45
>
> I can still build the installer, but I have never built
> binaries. The installer code in the repository is NOT the
> latest code. I had lost commit access for a time during the
> transition and by the time I got that access back there are
> no more binaries, so it has been pointless to continue
> development. If someone could produce binaries I could get
> the installer back on track, otherwise it's not worth
> spending any time on if the project will not support (as in
> supply) windows binaries.
~ mark c
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Olivier Sannier <ob...@free.fr>.
David Darj wrote:
> On 2010-04-22 17:06, Cooke, Mark wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> I am resurrecting this thread to ask if anyone has come forward to
>> volunteer time and/or effort to resurrect the windoze binaries as we
>> are still on 1.6.6 against 1.6.11 announced a few days ago.
>>
>> In hope...
>>
>> ~ Mark C
>>
>
> I have built both 1.6.9 and 1.6.11
> They are available on my webpage http://alagazam.net
> You (and anyone else) is welcome to download and use it.
That's awesome. Many thanks for all this, it's a relief to see those
packages available again.
> The reason I've not announced the release in this (users) list is that
> I've hoped some people reading the dev list (where I did announce it)
> to download and test it first so I know my build environment is okey.
Ah, yes, I don't read the dev list, too many messages that I don't have
a clue what they are talking about.
> As the web page says all test on subversion itself is running ok., but
> the bindings has not been tested.
I don't use the bindings, but I just used the rest of it. It works just
fine, couldn't see a problem with the package. It even installs on top
of the previous ones, no need to uninstall before installing that one.
Once again, many thanks for this.
As far as I'm concerned, these packages are good to go and should be put
forward on the SVN website pages.
Regards
Olivier
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by David Darj <zi...@alagazam.net>.
On 2010-04-22 17:06, Cooke, Mark wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I am resurrecting this thread to ask if anyone has come forward to volunteer time and/or effort to resurrect the windoze binaries as we are still on 1.6.6 against 1.6.11 announced a few days ago.
>
> In hope...
>
> ~ Mark C
>
>
I have built both 1.6.9 and 1.6.11
They are available on my webpage http://alagazam.net
You (and anyone else) is welcome to download and use it.
The reason I've not announced the release in this (users) list is that
I've hoped some people reading the dev list (where I did announce it) to
download and test it first so I know my build environment is okey.
As the web page says all test on subversion itself is running ok., but
the bindings has not been tested.
/David
RE: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by "Cooke, Mark" <ma...@siemens.com>.
Folks,
I am resurrecting this thread to ask if anyone has come forward to volunteer time and/or effort to resurrect the windoze binaries as we are still on 1.6.6 against 1.6.11 announced a few days ago.
In hope...
~ Mark C
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Troy Simpson <tr...@ebswift.com> wrote:
>> A minimum level of support would be a good thing to agree
>> on. Bear in mind the pre-stated
>> complexities in handling too many supported installations.
>> Maybe start at the baseline of 2.2x
>> apache support and see if a volunteer is able to deliver
>> builds for that?
>
> When you talk about Apache 2.2 support I assume you mean you need
> mod_dav_svn and not just to have SVN compiled against Apache 2.2's
> version of APR?
>
> One other "pain" I thought of is that ideally the binaries should be
> built using MSVC 6.0 (I am assuming DJ has not changed that). Since
> the httpd binaries are built using that you can have problems if a
> newer Visual Studio is used for mod_dav_svn. You also have to deal
> with distributing the MS runtime libraries if a newer version is used.
>
> The "pain" is that is not possible to obtain a legal copy of MSVC 6.0
> anymore. So unless you already have a copy you cannot get it.
>
> Building with Visual Studio 2008 is a lot simpler but has these other
> problems to contend with.
>
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by David Darj <zi...@alagazam.net>.
On 2010-03-03 16:25, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
> 2010/3/3 Mark Phippard<ma...@gmail.com>:
>
>> (...)
>> One other "pain" I thought of is that ideally the binaries should be
>> built using MSVC 6.0 (I am assuming DJ has not changed that). Since
>> the httpd binaries are built using that you can have problems if a
>> newer Visual Studio is used for mod_dav_svn. You also have to deal
>> with distributing the MS runtime libraries if a newer version is used.
>>
>> The "pain" is that is not possible to obtain a legal copy of MSVC 6.0
>> anymore. So unless you already have a copy you cannot get it.
>>
>> Building with Visual Studio 2008 is a lot simpler but has these other
>> problems to contend with.
>>
>>
> I, personally, do not know with what VS version official Apache HTTPD
> binaries (*.msi) are built with, but the ones from
> http://www.apachelounge.com/ that I am using (many thanks to them for
> providing those) are built with VC 2008.
>
> I had to install VC 2008 redistributable package, that can be downloaded here:
> www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9B2DA534-3E03-4391-8A4D-074B9F2BC1BF&displaylang=en
>
> I used Tigris binaries before, but since 1.6.9 I am using the
> Collabnet ones. I wish those were available as a zip archive (or with
> a command to unpack the installer), though.
>
> This is for a 32-bit OS.
>
> Best regards,
> Konstantin Kolinko
>
One idea I had was installing Collabnet's release and using their
binaries to build the Windows msi installer.
Don't know if this can be done legally? I think should be OK but I don't
know. Anyone who knows ?
/David
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Konstantin Kolinko
<kn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I, personally, do not know with what VS version official Apache HTTPD
> binaries (*.msi) are built with, but the ones from
> http://www.apachelounge.com/ that I am using (many thanks to them for
> providing those) are built with VC 2008.
I do not doubt that there are places where users can get a proper
Apache, but I guarantee if we provide binaries via tigris that
requires this, the lists will be flooded with users having weird
problems because they did not know.
Even though some people do not like it, this is why we bundle Apache
with the CollabNet binaries. We are ultimately concerned with helping
people easily setup and run a SVN server and having them get their own
Apache is just a recipe for problems.
> I used Tigris binaries before, but since 1.6.9 I am using the
> Collabnet ones. I wish those were available as a zip archive (or with
> a command to unpack the installer), though.
Any reason that is critical to you? The installer does little more
than unpack to a location and add to PATH. You can add /S to command
line to run it silent as well as specify the location. I doubt the
small install UI is the problem though.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Konstantin Kolinko <kn...@gmail.com>.
2010/3/3 Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>:
> (...)
> One other "pain" I thought of is that ideally the binaries should be
> built using MSVC 6.0 (I am assuming DJ has not changed that). Since
> the httpd binaries are built using that you can have problems if a
> newer Visual Studio is used for mod_dav_svn. You also have to deal
> with distributing the MS runtime libraries if a newer version is used.
>
> The "pain" is that is not possible to obtain a legal copy of MSVC 6.0
> anymore. So unless you already have a copy you cannot get it.
>
> Building with Visual Studio 2008 is a lot simpler but has these other
> problems to contend with.
>
I, personally, do not know with what VS version official Apache HTTPD
binaries (*.msi) are built with, but the ones from
http://www.apachelounge.com/ that I am using (many thanks to them for
providing those) are built with VC 2008.
I had to install VC 2008 redistributable package, that can be downloaded here:
www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9B2DA534-3E03-4391-8A4D-074B9F2BC1BF&displaylang=en
I used Tigris binaries before, but since 1.6.9 I am using the
Collabnet ones. I wish those were available as a zip archive (or with
a command to unpack the installer), though.
This is for a 32-bit OS.
Best regards,
Konstantin Kolinko
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by eg <eg...@gmail.com>.
On 3/3/2010 6:26 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>
> One other "pain" I thought of is that ideally the binaries should be
> built using MSVC 6.0 (I am assuming DJ has not changed that). Since
> the httpd binaries are built using that you can have problems if a
> newer Visual Studio is used for mod_dav_svn. You also have to deal
> with distributing the MS runtime libraries if a newer version is used.
I checked the last zipped binaries the other day and ran a depends
against them, and they were only dependent on vanilla msvc runtime
libraries... so yes, he was using MSVC 6 still.
The first issue you mention about building mod_dav_svn with different
run time library dependency as httpd is the bigger issue.
Is httpd always built using MSVC 6 still?
If that is a hard constraint, then distributing the new run time
libraries is red-herring.
Nevertheless, for the second issue, with the new Wix-based installer,
distributing newer runtime libraries is now trivial. You just install
the relevant library and policy merge modules provided by the compiler.
>
> The "pain" is that is not possible to obtain a legal copy of MSVC 6.0
> anymore. So unless you already have a copy you cannot get it.
>
> Building with Visual Studio 2008 is a lot simpler but has these other
> problems to contend with.
>
I still have a compiler and (probably) a build setup for a svn 1.4x
build I did using VC 6.0 back in 2006. I havent tried since, as it was a
real pain (as others have echoed) to drag in all the dependencies,
tools, and modify setup and scripts that would make it all work... and I
havent found the motivation to do it again.
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Troy Simpson <tr...@ebswift.com> wrote:
> A minimum level of support would be a good thing to agree on. Bear in mind the pre-stated
> complexities in handling too many supported installations. Maybe start at the baseline of 2.2x
> apache support and see if a volunteer is able to deliver builds for that?
When you talk about Apache 2.2 support I assume you mean you need
mod_dav_svn and not just to have SVN compiled against Apache 2.2's
version of APR?
One other "pain" I thought of is that ideally the binaries should be
built using MSVC 6.0 (I am assuming DJ has not changed that). Since
the httpd binaries are built using that you can have problems if a
newer Visual Studio is used for mod_dav_svn. You also have to deal
with distributing the MS runtime libraries if a newer version is used.
The "pain" is that is not possible to obtain a legal copy of MSVC 6.0
anymore. So unless you already have a copy you cannot get it.
Building with Visual Studio 2008 is a lot simpler but has these other
problems to contend with.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
RE: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Troy Simpson <tr...@ebswift.com>.
A minimum level of support would be a good thing to agree on. Bear in mind the pre-stated complexities in handling too many supported installations. Maybe start at the baseline of 2.2x apache support and see if a volunteer is able to deliver builds for that?
Regards,
Troy
From: Bojan Resnik [mailto:resnikb@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 8:32 PM
To: users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
2010/3/3 Olivier Sannier <ob...@free.fr>
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.
Well, I, for one, would need the Apache 2.2 bindings but I do not need the Python bindings at all, which I suspect most users don't either.
So basic binaries with 2.2 support would be perfect for starters
Agreed, Apache 2.2 bindings are must for me as well. Python and Ruby bindings would be nice, but our process doesn't depend on those.
--
Bojan Resnik
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Bojan Resnik <re...@gmail.com>.
2010/3/3 Olivier Sannier <ob...@free.fr>
> 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.
>>
>>
> Well, I, for one, would need the Apache 2.2 bindings but I do not need the
> Python bindings at all, which I suspect most users don't either.
> So basic binaries with 2.2 support would be perfect for starters
>
Agreed, Apache 2.2 bindings are must for me as well. Python and Ruby
bindings would be nice, but our process doesn't depend on those.
--
Bojan Resnik
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Olivier Sannier <ob...@free.fr>.
Geoff Rowell wrote:
> sNop wrote on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 7:39 AM:
>
>>> Well, I, for one, would need the Apache 2.2 bindings but I do not need
>>> the Python bindings at all, which I suspect most users don't either.
>>> So basic binaries with 2.2 support would be perfect for starters
>>>
>>>
>> The same, only need Apache 2.2 modules and compiled subversion, other
>> binding aren't so important for end user, which are useing subversion
>> for versioning own projects.
>>
>> And without installer! ;) Only copy to the Program Files and go on
>>
>>
> Anyone who uses ViewVC for enhanced browsing of Subversion repositories will
> be interested in the Python bindings.
Yes, of course.
The debate here is to find a minimal set of options to restart creating
win32 builds. Once the minimal set works, it will be easier to add the
rest of it.
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Olivier Sannier <ob...@free.fr>.
Geoff Rowell wrote:
> sNop wrote on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 7:39 AM:
>
>>> Well, I, for one, would need the Apache 2.2 bindings but I do not need
>>> the Python bindings at all, which I suspect most users don't either.
>>> So basic binaries with 2.2 support would be perfect for starters
>>>
>>>
>> The same, only need Apache 2.2 modules and compiled subversion, other
>> binding aren't so important for end user, which are useing subversion
>> for versioning own projects.
>>
>> And without installer! ;) Only copy to the Program Files and go on
>>
>>
> Anyone who uses ViewVC for enhanced browsing of Subversion repositories will
> be interested in the Python bindings.
Yes, of course.
The debate here is to find a minimal set of options to restart creating
win32 builds. Once the minimal set works, it will be easier to add the
rest of it.
RE: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Geoff Rowell <ge...@gmail.com>.
sNop wrote on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 7:39 AM:
>> Well, I, for one, would need the Apache 2.2 bindings but I do not need
>> the Python bindings at all, which I suspect most users don't either.
>> So basic binaries with 2.2 support would be perfect for starters
>>
> The same, only need Apache 2.2 modules and compiled subversion, other
> binding aren't so important for end user, which are useing subversion
> for versioning own projects.
>
> And without installer! ;) Only copy to the Program Files and go on
>
Anyone who uses ViewVC for enhanced browsing of Subversion repositories will
be interested in the Python bindings.
---
Geoff Rowell
geoff.rowell@gmail.com
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by sNop <sn...@seznam.cz>.
Hi all,
> Well, I, for one, would need the Apache 2.2 bindings but I do not need
> the Python bindings at all, which I suspect most users don't either.
> So basic binaries with 2.2 support would be perfect for starters
>
The same, only need Apache 2.2 modules and compiled subversion, other
binding aren't so important for end user, which are useing subversion
for versioning own projects.
And without installer! ;) Only copy to the Program Files and go on
RE: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by "Cooke, Mark" <ma...@siemens.com>.
> 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.
> >
> Well, I, for one, would need the Apache 2.2 bindings but I do
> not need the Python bindings at all, which I suspect most users
> don't either.
>
> So basic binaries with 2.2 support would be perfect for starters
>
As a windows user (and now admin) of Trac (trac.edgewall.org) I have
always appreciated the python bindings as a necessary part of the
package. It is one of the reasons that I was able to propose and am now
implementing Trac and subversion at work (which mandates windoze instead
of linux).
I looked at building what we needed from source but do not have time
allocated nor access to virtual machines (or even permission to install
all the requisite packages!) to be able to do it myself.
So, many thanks to D J Heap, Troy Simpson & co for all the hard work and
a plea to continue to support apache and bindings...
~ Mark C
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Olivier Sannier <ob...@free.fr>.
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.
>
Well, I, for one, would need the Apache 2.2 bindings but I do not need
the Python bindings at all, which I suspect most users don't either.
So basic binaries with 2.2 support would be perfect for starters
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 6:28 PM, <km...@rockwellcollins.com> wrote:
> I don't see any showstoppers either. We can all adapt. In fact,
> we were previously using the Collabnet installers, and (in this case
> unfortunately) moved to the tigris ones in the past for various reasons.
>
> Most likely, we will repackage something internally, which we
> do for most other apps anyway. (I build our solaris and linux
> versions from scratch with all dependencies, so I should just
> get off my lazy butt and build Windows too...)
Just fyi, but the CollabNet installer can also be installed Silent by
using the /S switch and accepts a command line option to specify the
directory to install to. The next version (next SVN release) will
also support an "answer file" so that you can provide the values for
any of the options in the UI of the installer. In the current version
(and in the absence of this file) we just choose a default. These
features came from users asking for them, as was suggested earlier.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
RE: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by km...@rockwellcollins.com.
Bob Archer <Bo...@amsi.com> wrote on 03/03/2010 04:42:49 PM:
> > Bob Archer <Bo...@amsi.com> wrote on 03/03/2010 03:15:22 PM:
> > > > David Darj wrote:
> > > > > My plan was to build (for a start) what's included in the
> > > > > svn-win32-1.6.x.zip,
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > /David
> > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > > What is wrong with the collabnet installers/binaries that you can't
use
> > them?
> >
> > Different default installation path and the old tigris installer
> > needs to be manually removed. The collabnet one can install more
stuff
> > (including apache) which I wouldn't want to give as an option.
>
> Ok...
>
> 1. You only have to remove the tigris installer once.
For an individual, yes. I have around 6000 installs to "upgrade"...
(Yes, there are other ways to do large upgrades, but the individual
users needs to upgrade on their own here for other reasons.)
> 2. You can specify the install directory rather than accept the
> default. When you run upgrades it will maintain the INSTALLDIR that you
used.
> 3. It only "installs" apache if you select it. And you can also opt
> to not set up svnserver/apache as services if you have you own
> apache install you want to use. Yes it throws apache in there too...
> 20 MB or so. You can delete it if taht 20 MB really bothers you. You
> could create a batch file that deletes all of the apache stuff
> except mod.dav_svn.so and run it after you run the installer.
>
> There is also the client only installer which doesn't install any of
> the server side stuff.
Hadn't noticed this. That effectively solves the "user decides they
want to install everything" problem.
> > I'm willing to move to another installer for our enterprise users
> > for a "major" 1.7 upgrade, but hesitant to do it sooner.
> >
> > My other option is to just modify the TortoiseSvn installer to
> > include command line binaries from somewhere. (This wouldn't
> > be for outside distribution though, so wouldn't help the community.)
> >
> > Kevin R.
>
> If you want just the command line binaries, use the client only
> collabnet installer.
>
> I really haven't seen a show stopper with using the collabnet
> installers except for, what seem to me, like a few very minor nits.
I don't see any showstoppers either. We can all adapt. In fact,
we were previously using the Collabnet installers, and (in this case
unfortunately) moved to the tigris ones in the past for various reasons.
Most likely, we will repackage something internally, which we
do for most other apps anyway. (I build our solaris and linux
versions from scratch with all dependencies, so I should just
get off my lazy butt and build Windows too...)
Don't get me wrong, I *HIGHLY* appreciate all the effort put
forth in the past (and in the future) by all the volunteers!!!
Kevin R.
RE: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Bob Archer <Bo...@amsi.com>.
> Bob Archer <Bo...@amsi.com> wrote on 03/03/2010 03:15:22 PM:
> > > David Darj wrote:
> > > > My plan was to build (for a start) what's included in the
> > > > svn-win32-1.6.x.zip,
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > /David
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> > What is wrong with the collabnet installers/binaries that you can't use
> them?
>
> Different default installation path and the old tigris installer
> needs to be manually removed. The collabnet one can install more stuff
> (including apache) which I wouldn't want to give as an option.
Ok...
1. You only have to remove the tigris installer once.
2. You can specify the install directory rather than accept the default. When you run upgrades it will maintain the INSTALLDIR that you used.
3. It only "installs" apache if you select it. And you can also opt to not set up svnserver/apache as services if you have you own apache install you want to use. Yes it throws apache in there too... 20 MB or so. You can delete it if taht 20 MB really bothers you. You could create a batch file that deletes all of the apache stuff except mod.dav_svn.so and run it after you run the installer.
There is also the client only installer which doesn't install any of the server side stuff.
> I'm willing to move to another installer for our enterprise users
> for a "major" 1.7 upgrade, but hesitant to do it sooner.
>
> My other option is to just modify the TortoiseSvn installer to
> include command line binaries from somewhere. (This wouldn't
> be for outside distribution though, so wouldn't help the community.)
>
> Kevin R.
If you want just the command line binaries, use the client only collabnet installer.
I really haven't seen a show stopper with using the collabnet installers except for, what seem to me, like a few very minor nits.
Also, maybe if you ask collabnet to modify their install a bit so you can have it give you mod_dav_svn.so without all the other apache stuff they might be willing to do that.
BOb
RE: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by km...@rockwellcollins.com.
Bob Archer <Bo...@amsi.com> wrote on 03/03/2010 03:15:22 PM:
> > David Darj wrote:
> > > My plan was to build (for a start) what's included in the
> > > svn-win32-1.6.x.zip,
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > /David
>
> > 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
> >
>
> What is wrong with the collabnet installers/binaries that you can't use
them?
Different default installation path and the old tigris installer
needs to be manually removed. The collabnet one can install more stuff
(including apache) which I wouldn't want to give as an option.
I'm willing to move to another installer for our enterprise users
for a "major" 1.7 upgrade, but hesitant to do it sooner.
My other option is to just modify the TortoiseSvn installer to
include command line binaries from somewhere. (This wouldn't
be for outside distribution though, so wouldn't help the community.)
Kevin R.
RE: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Bob Archer <Bo...@amsi.com>.
> David Darj wrote:
> > My plan was to build (for a start) what's included in the
> > svn-win32-1.6.x.zip,
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > /David
> 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
>
What is wrong with the collabnet installers/binaries that you can't use them?
My understanding of needing to build windows binaries from source would be to provide binaries for each svn commit in order to simplify testing interium versions.
BOb
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Olivier Sannier <ob...@free.fr>.
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
> svn-win32-1.6.x.zip,
>
> 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.
>
> /David
>
> 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@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 7:54 AM
>>> To: Johan Corveleyn
>>> Cc: Daniel Shahaf; users@subversion.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Johan Corveleyn<jc...@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/
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by David Darj <zi...@alagazam.net>.
My plan was to build (for a start) what's included in the
svn-win32-1.6.x.zip,
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.
/David
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@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 7:54 AM
>> To: Johan Corveleyn
>> Cc: Daniel Shahaf; users@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Johan Corveleyn<jc...@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/
>>
>
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Olivier Sannier <ob...@free.fr>.
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.
>
Well, I, for one, would need the Apache 2.2 bindings but I do not need
the Python bindings at all, which I suspect most users don't either.
So basic binaries with 2.2 support would be perfect for starters
RE: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Troy Simpson <tr...@ebswift.com>.
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@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 7:54 AM
> To: Johan Corveleyn
> Cc: Daniel Shahaf; users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jc...@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/
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jc...@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/
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> David Darj wrote on Tue, 2 Mar 2010 at 19:42 +0100:
>> There is instructions how to build Win32 binaries in the INSTALL file.
>> However, I tried twice (once at work and once at home) and failed with
>> compilation errors. Maybe because of using wrong version of dependencies or
>> wrong parameters to the build scripts.
>> And I havn't had the time to track those errors down to their source.
>>
>> I have a virtual machine I can use for the build process.
>> I too would be very happy if DJ could come up with a detailed description of
>> his build process.
>> Then I would gladly take over and build upcoming versions for the community.
>>
>> /David
>>
> If you try to build and fail, feel free to post to this list and we'll help.
>
> There are a couple of other ways to build svn besides what's documented in
> INSTALL :-). I posted to this list a makefile that I use (with VC
> express) for my windows build, and IIRC the tortoisesvn folks (and other
> windows clients) have their own build scripts too.
>
> (Oh, and I don't know if anyone ever tried to cross-compile svn windows
> binaries on other OSes.)
>
> Good luck!
>
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
Regards,
Johan
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
If you try to build and fail, feel free to post to this list and we'll help.
There are a couple of other ways to build svn besides what's documented in
INSTALL :-). I posted to this list a makefile that I use (with VC
express) for my windows build, and IIRC the tortoisesvn folks (and other
windows clients) have their own build scripts too.
(Oh, and I don't know if anyone ever tried to cross-compile svn windows
binaries on other OSes.)
Good luck!
Daniel
David Darj wrote on Tue, 2 Mar 2010 at 19:42 +0100:
> There is instructions how to build Win32 binaries in the INSTALL file.
> However, I tried twice (once at work and once at home) and failed with
> compilation errors. Maybe because of using wrong version of dependencies or
> wrong parameters to the build scripts.
> And I havn't had the time to track those errors down to their source.
>
> I have a virtual machine I can use for the build process.
> I too would be very happy if DJ could come up with a detailed description of
> his build process.
> Then I would gladly take over and build upcoming versions for the community.
>
> /David
>
>
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by sNop <sn...@seznam.cz>.
Hi Dave,
Dne 2. 3. 2010 19:42, David Darj napsal(a):
> Then I would gladly take over and build upcoming versions for the
> community.
>
> /David
>
That would by cool.
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by David Darj <zi...@alagazam.net>.
On 2010-03-02 07:57, Olivier Sannier wrote:
> Troy Simpson wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I can still build the installer, but I have never built binaries.
>> The installer code in the repository is NOT the latest code. I had
>> lost commit access for a time during the transition and by the time I
>> got that access back there are no more binaries, so it has been
>> pointless to continue development. If someone could produce binaries
>> I could get the installer back on track, otherwise it’s not worth
>> spending any time on if the project will not support (as in supply)
>> windows binaries.
>>
>> I was advised to discuss this on the dev list, which is what I did,
>> however there has been zero response. There is more discussion on
>> the user end than the developer end. If anyone in user-land has the
>> capability to construct the binaries in a similar fashion to the way
>> they were produced before, I for one would bring this to the
>> attention of the developer list if nobody else does. It is my
>> opinion that the project should have a ‘supported’ release to assist
>> with bug finding and to provide end-users with a standard base-level
>> release.
>>
> So the situation is as follows:
>
> The previous builder (DJ Heap?) does not have the time to build the
> Win32 binaries anymore.
> I, for one, could dedicate a few hours to create the latest ones and
> the next ones as well. It does not seem too much complicated to build
> them.
> What I'm lacking is a description of what to run and in what order.
> I mean, there are Python scripts related to win32 in the build folder,
> but I am not sure what they are doing. Having a simple "step by step"
> guide would actually save time.
> Is there a way to ask the previous builder to at least document this?
>
> Regards
> Olivier
There is instructions how to build Win32 binaries in the INSTALL file.
However, I tried twice (once at work and once at home) and failed with
compilation errors. Maybe because of using wrong version of dependencies
or wrong parameters to the build scripts.
And I havn't had the time to track those errors down to their source.
I have a virtual machine I can use for the build process.
I too would be very happy if DJ could come up with a detailed
description of his build process.
Then I would gladly take over and build upcoming versions for the community.
/David
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by David Darj <zi...@alagazam.net>.
On 2010-03-02 07:57, Olivier Sannier wrote:
> Troy Simpson wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I can still build the installer, but I have never built binaries.
>> The installer code in the repository is NOT the latest code. I had
>> lost commit access for a time during the transition and by the time I
>> got that access back there are no more binaries, so it has been
>> pointless to continue development. If someone could produce binaries
>> I could get the installer back on track, otherwise it’s not worth
>> spending any time on if the project will not support (as in supply)
>> windows binaries.
>>
>> I was advised to discuss this on the dev list, which is what I did,
>> however there has been zero response. There is more discussion on
>> the user end than the developer end. If anyone in user-land has the
>> capability to construct the binaries in a similar fashion to the way
>> they were produced before, I for one would bring this to the
>> attention of the developer list if nobody else does. It is my
>> opinion that the project should have a ‘supported’ release to assist
>> with bug finding and to provide end-users with a standard base-level
>> release.
>>
> So the situation is as follows:
>
> The previous builder (DJ Heap?) does not have the time to build the
> Win32 binaries anymore.
> I, for one, could dedicate a few hours to create the latest ones and
> the next ones as well. It does not seem too much complicated to build
> them.
> What I'm lacking is a description of what to run and in what order.
> I mean, there are Python scripts related to win32 in the build folder,
> but I am not sure what they are doing. Having a simple "step by step"
> guide would actually save time.
> Is there a way to ask the previous builder to at least document this?
>
> Regards
> Olivier
There is instructions how to build Win32 binaries in the INSTALL file.
However, I tried twice (once at work and once at home) and failed with
compilation errors. Maybe because of using wrong version of dependencies
or wrong parameters to the build scripts.
And I havn't had the time to track those errors down to their source.
I have a virtual machine I can use for the build process.
I too would be very happy if DJ could come up with a detailed
description of his build process.
Then I would gladly take over and build upcoming versions for the community.
/David
RE: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by "Cooke, Mark" <ma...@siemens.com>.
Dear list,
> > Troy Simpson wrote:
> >
> > I was advised to discuss this on the dev list, which is
> > what I did, however there has been zero response. There is
> > more discussion on the user end than the developer end. If
> > anyone in user-land has the capability to construct the
> > binaries in a similar fashion to the way they were produced
> > before, I for one would bring this to the attention of the
> > developer list if nobody else does. It is my opinion that
> > the project should have a 'supported' release to assist with
> > bug finding and to provide end-users with a standard
> > base-level release.
> >
I cannot help thinking that we might have avoided a lot of questions and
frustrations if a status note and request for a new maintainer had been
added to either the download page (still tigris.org) and/or the Windows
Binaries page at apache
(http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html#windows).
> Olivier Sannier wrote:
>
> So the situation is as follows:
>
> The previous builder (DJ Heap?) does not have the time to
> build the Win32 binaries anymore.
> I, for one, could dedicate a few hours to create the latest
> ones and the next ones as well. It does not seem too much
> complicated to build them.
> What I'm lacking is a description of what to run and in what order.
> I mean, there are Python scripts related to win32 in the
> build folder, but I am not sure what they are doing. Having a
> simple "step by step" guide would actually save time.
> Is there a way to ask the previous builder to at least document this?
>
I have looked at buiding the binaries myself but am unsure of how much
work there is (and I have issues about what I am allowed to install
here) but there seems to be quite a lot involved to build:
~ the main subversion binaries
~ Apache 2.0 binaries
~ Apache 2.2 binaries
~ python bindings for 2.5, 2.6, ...
~ ruby bindings
~ perl bindings
~ JavaHL (?)
~ Debug symbol packages
As previously mentioned, the problem stems mostly from lack of
instructions of how to put this all together...
~ Mark C
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Olivier Sannier <ob...@free.fr>.
Troy Simpson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I can still build the installer, but I have never built binaries. The
> installer code in the repository is NOT the latest code. I had lost
> commit access for a time during the transition and by the time I got
> that access back there are no more binaries, so it has been pointless
> to continue development. If someone could produce binaries I could
> get the installer back on track, otherwise it’s not worth spending any
> time on if the project will not support (as in supply) windows binaries.
>
>
>
> I was advised to discuss this on the dev list, which is what I did,
> however there has been zero response. There is more discussion on the
> user end than the developer end. If anyone in user-land has the
> capability to construct the binaries in a similar fashion to the way
> they were produced before, I for one would bring this to the attention
> of the developer list if nobody else does. It is my opinion that the
> project should have a ‘supported’ release to assist with bug finding
> and to provide end-users with a standard base-level release.
>
So the situation is as follows:
The previous builder (DJ Heap?) does not have the time to build the
Win32 binaries anymore.
I, for one, could dedicate a few hours to create the latest ones and the
next ones as well. It does not seem too much complicated to build them.
What I'm lacking is a description of what to run and in what order.
I mean, there are Python scripts related to win32 in the build folder,
but I am not sure what they are doing. Having a simple "step by step"
guide would actually save time.
Is there a way to ask the previous builder to at least document this?
Regards
Olivier
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Olivier Sannier <ob...@free.fr>.
Troy Simpson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I can still build the installer, but I have never built binaries. The
> installer code in the repository is NOT the latest code. I had lost
> commit access for a time during the transition and by the time I got
> that access back there are no more binaries, so it has been pointless
> to continue development. If someone could produce binaries I could
> get the installer back on track, otherwise it’s not worth spending any
> time on if the project will not support (as in supply) windows binaries.
>
>
>
> I was advised to discuss this on the dev list, which is what I did,
> however there has been zero response. There is more discussion on the
> user end than the developer end. If anyone in user-land has the
> capability to construct the binaries in a similar fashion to the way
> they were produced before, I for one would bring this to the attention
> of the developer list if nobody else does. It is my opinion that the
> project should have a ‘supported’ release to assist with bug finding
> and to provide end-users with a standard base-level release.
>
So the situation is as follows:
The previous builder (DJ Heap?) does not have the time to build the
Win32 binaries anymore.
I, for one, could dedicate a few hours to create the latest ones and the
next ones as well. It does not seem too much complicated to build them.
What I'm lacking is a description of what to run and in what order.
I mean, there are Python scripts related to win32 in the build folder,
but I am not sure what they are doing. Having a simple "step by step"
guide would actually save time.
Is there a way to ask the previous builder to at least document this?
Regards
Olivier
RE: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by km...@rockwellcollins.com.
"Troy Simpson" <tr...@ebswift.com> wrote on 03/01/2010 08:44:54 PM:
> I can still build the installer, but I have never built binaries.
> The installer code in the repository is NOT the latest code. I had
> lost commit access for a time during the transition and by the time
> I got that access back there are no more binaries, so it has been
> pointless to continue development. If someone could produce
> binaries I could get the installer back on track, otherwise it?s not
> worth spending any time on if the project will not support (as in
> supply) windows binaries.
>
> I was advised to discuss this on the dev list, which is what I did,
> however there has been zero response. There is more discussion on
> the user end than the developer end. If anyone in user-land has the
> capability to construct the binaries in a similar fashion to the way
> they were produced before, I for one would bring this to the
> attention of the developer list if nobody else does. It is my
> opinion that the project should have a ?supported? release to assist
> with bug finding and to provide end-users with a standard base-level
release.
I too posted a question about the windows build process, but without
the recipe, I just haven't found the time to dig into it myself.
(I created my virtual machine, but wasn't even sure what build tool
versions were preferred.)
I believe there are windows binaries generated by the windows build bots.
Not sure if the build bots run on the release branches for all platforms,
but that could probably be remedied. No idea if those binaries
are built in a compatible way to the previous release ones...
There was some discussion if some of the Apache infrastructure could
be used for the build. Not sure if that was resolved or pursued.
If I remember correctly, DJ's build machine completely died and is the
main reason he was unable to perform the build.
Kevin R.
RE: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Troy Simpson <tr...@ebswift.com>.
Hi,
I can still build the installer, but I have never built binaries. The installer code in the repository is NOT the latest code. I had lost commit access for a time during the transition and by the time I got that access back there are no more binaries, so it has been pointless to continue development. If someone could produce binaries I could get the installer back on track, otherwise it’s not worth spending any time on if the project will not support (as in supply) windows binaries.
I was advised to discuss this on the dev list, which is what I did, however there has been zero response. There is more discussion on the user end than the developer end. If anyone in user-land has the capability to construct the binaries in a similar fashion to the way they were produced before, I for one would bring this to the attention of the developer list if nobody else does. It is my opinion that the project should have a ‘supported’ release to assist with bug finding and to provide end-users with a standard base-level release.
Regards,
Troy Simpson
From: Olivier Sannier [mailto:obones@free.fr]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 8:03 AM
To: sNop
Cc: users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
sNop wrote:
Dne 1. 3. 2010 15:09, Olivier Sannier napsal(a):
Bojan Resnik wrote:
Hi,
We have a custom server setup and we have been using Tigris.org
binaries for Windows. The latest version there, however, is 1.6.6.
Will there be Tigris.org binary packages for Windows for Subversion
1.6.9 and later? Or perhaps an equivalent of these packages, with
full server, client and bindings but without installers?
I would be interested in those as well, please.
Regards
Olivier
Hi,
the same here, I'm lacking this builds too
I would not mind building them, but I have a hard time finding any instructions to build the binaries for win32.
There are instructions for building the installation package, but without the binaries and the compiled help, it's not of any use yet.
Regards
Olivier
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Olivier Sannier <ob...@free.fr>.
sNop wrote:
> Dne 1. 3. 2010 15:09, Olivier Sannier napsal(a):
>
>> Bojan Resnik wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> We have a custom server setup and we have been using Tigris.org
>>> binaries for Windows. The latest version there, however, is 1.6.6.
>>> Will there be Tigris.org binary packages for Windows for Subversion
>>> 1.6.9 and later? Or perhaps an equivalent of these packages, with
>>> full server, client and bindings but without installers?
>>>
>> I would be interested in those as well, please.
>>
>> Regards
>> Olivier
>>
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> the same here, I'm lacking this builds too
I would not mind building them, but I have a hard time finding any
instructions to build the binaries for win32.
There are instructions for building the installation package, but
without the binaries and the compiled help, it's not of any use yet.
Regards
Olivier
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by sNop <sn...@seznam.cz>.
Dne 1. 3. 2010 15:09, Olivier Sannier napsal(a):
> Bojan Resnik wrote:
>> Hi,
>> We have a custom server setup and we have been using Tigris.org
>> binaries for Windows. The latest version there, however, is 1.6.6.
>> Will there be Tigris.org binary packages for Windows for Subversion
>> 1.6.9 and later? Or perhaps an equivalent of these packages, with
>> full server, client and bindings but without installers?
> I would be interested in those as well, please.
>
> Regards
> Olivier
>
Hi,
the same here, I'm lacking this builds too
Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows
Posted by Olivier Sannier <ob...@free.fr>.
Bojan Resnik wrote:
> Hi,
> We have a custom server setup and we have been using Tigris.org
> binaries for Windows. The latest version there, however, is 1.6.6.
> Will there be Tigris.org binary packages for Windows for Subversion
> 1.6.9 and later? Or perhaps an equivalent of these packages, with full
> server, client and bindings but without installers?
I would be interested in those as well, please.
Regards
Olivier