You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net> on 2004/02/02 19:40:25 UTC
Re: svn commit: r8530 - branches/1.0.x
On Tuesday 27 January 2004 21.29, josander@tigris.org wrote:
Hi,
I'm requesting that someone can give me the needed votes for merging
r8066, r8376, r8515 and r8516 into the 1.0.x branch.
Please, read further, even if you are not a Windows developer:
The 0.37.0 version of the Windows installer (wich has proven to be very
stable) used the revisions I want merged into the 1.0.x branch and it's
needed for making a 1.00.0 version of the Windows installer.
It's no Pascal Woodoo here, only some document changes and "search and
replace" of some words in the setup script:
So please, help me to get this needed votes, even if they are not so
glamourous:
r8066:
A small update of a RTF document (packages/win32-innosetup/Pre.rtf)
that informs the user during the installation.
r8376:
A typical "search and replace" change. This is from the log:
Several packages (among this: Inno Setup itself and XML progs)
are updated to newer versions. Inno Setup (IS) and Inno Setup
Extensions (ISX) are now merged since its version 4. So any
previous references, variables, functions or calls who was for
ISX are now changed to IS.
r8515:
* packages\win32-innosetup\Readme.txt: The section about Rolling
your own distro are updated.
r8516:
Small nits and picks about version numbering and copyright notices.
The prefered Berkeley DB are 4.2.52. The copyright notice timeline
is changed from 2000-2003 to 2000-2004
Please, look at branches/1.0.x/STATUS. I need some votes.
Jostein
--
http://www.josander.net/kontakt/ ||
http://www.josander.net/en/contact/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r8530 - branches/1.0.x
Posted by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>.
Hi John,
On Tuesday 03 February 2004 10.52, John Szakmeister wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 February 2004 02:27, Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
...
> > For me, this sounds like the installer are next to shit but it's
> > tolerable because it's better than nothing (or do I misunderstand
> > here?).
>
> I don't think that's what Branko is saying here. I think he's
> stressing the importance of having an installer script that we're
> happy with, and that he's behind whatever changes you need to make in
> order to make it happen. FWIW, on the Windows platform, it's all that
You are right (of course). I have been very foolish here. Thanks for
stepping in and saying it. :-)
> I use. I have 8 people using SVN on Windows at work, and every single
> one of them use the installer to update their version of Subversion.
> I've been very happy with it, and have had no problems in getting
> Subversion up and running it.
Thanks, nice to know. :-)
Jostein
--
http://www.josander.net/kontakt/ ||
http://www.josander.net/en/contact/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r8530 - branches/1.0.x
Posted by John Szakmeister <jo...@szakmeister.net>.
On Tuesday 03 February 2004 02:27, Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
> First, this replay is not to Branko alone, it's to everyone. He is just
> saying what many other people seems to think about what's written below:
>
> [snip]
> > Apart from that, I'm all for merging this to the 1.0 branch. Even if
> > there are still bugs in this version of the installer, they can be no
> > worse than not having wirking installer scripts at all in 1.0, and
> > these changes have no impact on the rest of Subversion.
>
> For me, this sounds like the installer are next to shit but it's
> tolerable because it's better than nothing (or do I misunderstand
> here?).
I don't think that's what Branko is saying here. I think he's stressing the
importance of having an installer script that we're happy with, and that he's
behind whatever changes you need to make in order to make it happen. FWIW,
on the Windows platform, it's all that I use. I have 8 people using SVN on
Windows at work, and every single one of them use the installer to update
their version of Subversion. I've been very happy with it, and have had no
problems in getting Subversion up and running it.
-John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r8530 - branches/1.0.x
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
>On Tuesday 03 February 2004 18.43, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>
>>Right then, I'll have a bash at reviewing the language in the
>>installer docs ASAP.
>>
>>
>
>Thanks, and then we just do the merge without saying anything, then no
>one notices that it's done ;-)
>
>
Heh. I'll cast my vote in STATUS, too. :-)
--
Brane Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r8530 - branches/1.0.x
Posted by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>.
On Tuesday 03 February 2004 18.43, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
...
> >A have (locally on a WC) a version of the installer that installs
> >libdb42.dll to Apache's modules folder as well as in the Subversion
> > path when Apache is detected on the system.
> >It does a "apache -k stop/apache -k uninstall/copy dbfile/apache -k
> >install/apache -k start" cycle.
>
> Well, of course it would be great if installation of mod_dav_svn could
> be completely automated, but I don't think it's a requirement for 1.0.
> You'll have to judge if what you have in your WC is stable (and
> tested) enough to commit now. I wouldn't mind at all if this
> automation went into 1.0.1, assuming of course that the automated
> upgrade will be compatible with the instructions for manual
> installation that we have now.
It can wait until 1.0.1. I'm very happy with the stable state of the
current installer.
> Right then, I'll have a bash at reviewing the language in the
> installer docs ASAP.
Thanks, and then we just do the merge without saying anything, then no
one notices that it's done ;-)
Jostein
--
http://www.josander.net/kontakt/ ||
http://www.josander.net/en/contact/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r8530 - branches/1.0.x
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
>On Tuesday 03 February 2004 12.31, brane@xbc.nu wrote:
>
>
>>I'm still thinking about this. Did the installer use to put
>>libdb40.dll in the Apache directory, or does it just use something
>>already installed by Apache?
>>
>>If the first, then there's no problem at all -- the installer can just
>>replace libdb40.dll with libdb42.dll when it configures the Apache
>>modules, and there's no need to tell the user about the change.
>>
>>
>
>The Installer do only put libdb42.dll in the Subversion path at the
>moment. There is no libdb42.dll (or libdb40.dll) included with Apache
>AFAIK.
>
>
If that's the case, then what's wriien in Pre.rtf is correct, and I
wothdaw my objection.
>A have (locally on a WC) a version of the installer that installs
>libdb42.dll to Apache's modules folder as well as in the Subversion path
>when Apache is detected on the system.
>It does a "apache -k stop/apache -k uninstall/copy dbfile/apache -k
>install/apache -k start" cycle.
>
>
Well, of course it would be great if installation of mod_dav_svn could
be completely automated, but I don't think it's a requirement for 1.0.
You'll have to judge if what you have in your WC is stable (and tested)
enough to commit now. I wouldn't mind at all if this automation went
into 1.0.1, assuming of course that the automated upgrade will be
compatible with the instructions for manual installation that we have now.
Right then, I'll have a bash at reviewing the language in the installer
docs ASAP.
--
Brane Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r8530 - branches/1.0.x
Posted by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>.
Oops, I was to negative here (having some bad moments).
First, I like you Branko and have the deepest respect for you. I feel
that you are an honest and decent person who don't try to miscredit me
(or anyone else for that matter).
Please, bare over with me for my negative writing on my previous posting.
On Tuesday 03 February 2004 12.31, brane@xbc.nu wrote:
> I'm still thinking about this. Did the installer use to put
> libdb40.dll in the Apache directory, or does it just use something
> already installed by Apache?
>
> If the first, then there's no problem at all -- the installer can just
> replace libdb40.dll with libdb42.dll when it configures the Apache
> modules, and there's no need to tell the user about the change.
The Installer do only put libdb42.dll in the Subversion path at the
moment. There is no libdb42.dll (or libdb40.dll) included with Apache
AFAIK.
A have (locally on a WC) a version of the installer that installs
libdb42.dll to Apache's modules folder as well as in the Subversion path
when Apache is detected on the system.
It does a "apache -k stop/apache -k uninstall/copy dbfile/apache -k
install/apache -k start" cycle.
> > > And it would be oh so nice to fix the English in these docs before
> > > we put them into a release...
> >
> > Anyone are welcome to fix my English. This happends automatically by
> > several people on the CHANGES file and program comments and so on.
> > I will work on improving my grammar, but in the meantime - and even
> > "English speaking" peopele do mistakes from time to time, I ask/beg
> > everyone to tell me what's wrong or fix it.
>
> Jostein, I'm not criticising your English, nor do I expect everyone's
> English to be perfect. After all, mine isn't. :-) What I'm saying is,
> fixing the language doesn't cost us anything (except somebody's time).
> I can try to find the time to do that myself this week.
I'm glad you do. Your spelings and granmars is much butter than mine :-)
To be serious: -My English sucks, and I need help.
> > For me, this sounds like the installer are next to shit but it's
> > tolerable because it's better than nothing (or do I misunderstand
> > here?).
>
> No no no, you misunderstood. I'm very happy with the installer, and I
> definitely want to see the changes merged to 1.0. The point of what I
> wrote is that this merge should not delay the 1.0 release; that's why
> I stressed that "these changes have no impact on the rest of
> Subversion."
>
> I'm sorry if this wasn't clear.
I'm to touchy today. You have not done anything wrong.
> > I thinks it's time to lend the installer over to someone else (even
> > when I love this job), but I wont let it go until after 1.00.0.
Thanks for saying it Branko. It means a lot :-)
I did not mean to attack you, I'm sorry.
Jostein
--
http://www.josander.net/kontakt/ ||
http://www.josander.net/en/contact/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r8530 - branches/1.0.x
Posted by br...@xbc.nu.
Quoting "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>:
> First, this replay is not to Branko alone, it's to everyone. He is just
>
> saying what many other people seems to think about what's written
> below:
>
> On Monday 02 February 2004 22.10, Branko �ibej wrote:
> > Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
> > >Please, look at branches/1.0.x/STATUS. I need some votes.
> >
> > One nit: Pre.rtf says: "Make sure that you replace the any libdb40.dll
> > with this package's libdb42.dll:" This is plainly wrong: If Apache is
> > linked against libdb40.dll, it won't work if you remove that file. And
> > even if it did find the new dll, BDB 4.0 and 4.2 are neither API nor
> > ABI-compatible, even in the small subset which apr_dbm uses.
>
> Does, that mean that it's no need to mention this at all here? Any
> suggestion of what to write?
I'm still thinking about this. Did the installer use to put libdb40.dll in the
Apache directory, or does it just use something already installed by Apache?
If the first, then there's no problem at all -- the installer can just replace
libdb40.dll with libdb42.dll when it configures the Apache modules, and there's
no need to tell the user about the change.
If the second, then we have a big problem.
> > And it would be oh so nice to fix the English in these docs before we
> > put them into a release...
>
> Anyone are welcome to fix my English. This happends automatically by
> several people on the CHANGES file and program comments and so on.
> I will work on improving my grammar, but in the meantime - and even
> "English speaking" peopele do mistakes from time to time, I ask/beg
> everyone to tell me what's wrong or fix it.
Jostein, I'm not criticising your English, nor do I expect everyone's English to
be perfect. After all, mine isn't. :-) What I'm saying is, fixing the language
doesn't cost us anything (except somebody's time). I can try to find the time to
do that myself this week.
> > Apart from that, I'm all for merging this to the 1.0 branch. Even if
> > there are still bugs in this version of the installer, they can be no
> > worse than not having wirking installer scripts at all in 1.0, and
> > these changes have no impact on the rest of Subversion.
>
> For me, this sounds like the installer are next to shit but it's
> tolerable because it's better than nothing (or do I misunderstand
> here?).
No no no, you misunderstood. I'm very happy with the installer, and I definitely
want to see the changes merged to 1.0. The point of what I wrote is that this
merge should not delay the 1.0 release; that's why I stressed that "these
changes have no impact on the rest of Subversion."
I'm sorry if this wasn't clear.
> I have the Apache routines of altering the httpd.conf and all other
> apache stuff ready, but I will not commit it before the needed excisting
> changes are merged into the branches/1.0.x (it's tough enough to have
> any response of merging the current one as it is).
>
> But I start to wonder if I should do more about this at all, several
> people want the MS MSI installer in and I will not stand in the way for
> it if that's what people want. And, of course, we have the Nullsoft
> installer.
I don't know who these "several people" are; I'm definitely not one of them. If
the installer conforms to MS application instalation rules (whatever these are),
and if it behaves sanely (which it does, from all I've seen), then there's no
need to change anything. AFAIK MSI is only required for Windows certification,
and we don't need that.
[...]
> I thinks it's time to lend the installer over to someone else (even when
> I love this job), but I wont let it go until after 1.00.0.
Actually, I think you're doing a great job with the installer, and see no reason
why you should stop.
Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r8530 - branches/1.0.x
Posted by "Jostein Chr. Andersen" <jo...@josander.net>.
First, this replay is not to Branko alone, it's to everyone. He is just
saying what many other people seems to think about what's written below:
On Monday 02 February 2004 22.10, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
> >Please, look at branches/1.0.x/STATUS. I need some votes.
>
> One nit: Pre.rtf says: "Make sure that you replace the any libdb40.dll
> with this package's libdb42.dll:" This is plainly wrong: If Apache is
> linked against libdb40.dll, it won't work if you remove that file. And
> even if it did find the new dll, BDB 4.0 and 4.2 are neither API nor
> ABI-compatible, even in the small subset which apr_dbm uses.
Does, that mean that it's no need to mention this at all here? Any
suggestion of what to write?
> And it would be oh so nice to fix the English in these docs before we
> put them into a release...
Anyone are welcome to fix my English. This happends automatically by
several people on the CHANGES file and program comments and so on.
I will work on improving my grammar, but in the meantime - and even
"English speaking" peopele do mistakes from time to time, I ask/beg
everyone to tell me what's wrong or fix it.
> Apart from that, I'm all for merging this to the 1.0 branch. Even if
> there are still bugs in this version of the installer, they can be no
> worse than not having wirking installer scripts at all in 1.0, and
> these changes have no impact on the rest of Subversion.
For me, this sounds like the installer are next to shit but it's
tolerable because it's better than nothing (or do I misunderstand
here?).
I have the Apache routines of altering the httpd.conf and all other
apache stuff ready, but I will not commit it before the needed excisting
changes are merged into the branches/1.0.x (it's tough enough to have
any response of merging the current one as it is).
But I start to wonder if I should do more about this at all, several
people want the MS MSI installer in and I will not stand in the way for
it if that's what people want. And, of course, we have the Nullsoft
installer.
I just want you to consider this before advocating other installers than
Inno Setup:
* Inno Setup are probably the most stable installer (check Google
and other places before arguing about that).
* It's using Pascal Scripting (Object Oriented Delphi like) when
doing more than average installer jobs. This is more powerful
that VB (VBA), and as easy to use and learn as VB. Many people
who are monitoring Subversion can Pascal.
* Inno Setup are 100% self contained.
* This projects are some that are using Inno Setup:
Gimp and GTK for Windows, Nasa (http://mars.telascience.org/)
and lot of others you can find here:
http://www.vincenzo.net/isxkb/modules.php?name=InnoSetup_Users
I thinks it's time to lend the installer over to someone else (even when
I love this job), but I wont let it go until after 1.00.0.
Jostein
--
http://www.josander.net/kontakt/ ||
http://www.josander.net/en/contact/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: svn commit: r8530 - branches/1.0.x
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Jostein Chr. Andersen wrote:
>Please, look at branches/1.0.x/STATUS. I need some votes.
>
>
One nit: Pre.rtf says: "Make sure that you replace the any libdb40.dll
with this package's libdb42.dll:" This is plainly wrong: If Apache is
linked against libdb40.dll, it won't work if you remove that file. And
even if it did find the new dll, BDB 4.0 and 4.2 are neither API nor
ABI-compatible, even in the small subset which apr_dbm uses.
And it would be oh so nice to fix the English in these docs before we
put them into a release...
Apart from that, I'm all for merging this to the 1.0 branch. Even if
there are still bugs in this version of the installer, they can be no
worse than not having wirking installer scripts at all in 1.0, and these
changes have no impact on the rest of Subversion.
--
Brane Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org