You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Miha Vitorovic <mv...@nil.si> on 2005/07/08 07:22:09 UTC
Win32 1.2.1
Hi all,
I've seen it said that it may take a week or more to get the Win32 version
of Subversion after a new release, but I guess I got spoiled by quick
releases of the last few versions. So any news on the Win32 release of
v1.2.1? Yes/No/Maybe?
Cheers,
---
Miha Vitorovic
Inženir v tehničnem področju
Customer Support Engineer
NIL Data Communications, Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Phone +386 1 4746 500 Fax +386 1 4746 501 http://www.NIL.si
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Win32 1.2.1
Posted by Christopher Ness <ch...@nesser.org>.
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 13:54 -0400, Scott Palmer wrote:
> The current issue with ZLib, of which I don't know any of the
> details, could have been announced on the list as well, just to give
> the community an idea of what was going on.
FYI: It was brought up on the _dev_ list.
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2005-07/0276.shtml
Chris
--
Wireless Group,
McMaster University
finger.localdomain
14:09:28 up 2:18, 1 user, load average: 0.06, 0.11, 0.15
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Win32 1.2.1
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Scott Palmer wrote:
>
> On 8-Jul-05, at 1:20 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> Mark Phippard wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Try to cut some slack. The Win32 binaries have been coming out on
>>> almost the same day as the official release of the source for a
>>> while now.
>>>
>> So they have. And all I have to say to anyone who can't wait for a
>> few days ubtil I find the time (usually between 2 and 4 a.m.) to
>> build the distro is, with great restraint, "build it yourself."
>> After all, what's a few days compared to the serveal weeks between
>> patch releases?
>
>
>
> Please don't assume that I have a complaint against the time you take
> to produce Win32 binaries. That is not my point, and I am thankful
> that you do it at all.
>
> I was simply expressing the possibility that the subversion team
> could officially include Win32 binaries, and perhaps Mac OS X
> binaries as part of the official release.. I only suggest it because
> I *assume* that building on Win32 and OS X is a requirement for them
> to sign-off on the source tarball, so logically the binaries have
> already been built.
Certainly the tarball gets tested (and therefore built) on several
platforms so that its tested before its released. However, I don't agree
that the project's policies about only providing source releases need
changing. As things stand now, binary releases for most platforms
(notably Windows and OS X) do get published within a few days of a
source release, and my point is that "a few days" vs. "at the same time
as" isn't worth the hassle.
I'd also mention that the step from "built and tested" to "packaged for
distribution" is not insignificant, at least on Windows (and I suspect
on other platforms, too).
> The current issue with ZLib, of which I don't know any of the
> details, could have been announced on the list as well, just to give
> the community an idea of what was going on.
Indeed, this was only mentioned on the dev@ list. I'll make an
announcement that the Win32 binaries are held up by ZLib.
> I would build it myself, but I attempted that with 1.1.0 and found
> that setting up a Windows machine to build subversion was extremely
> painful.. amounting to a wild goose chase of tracking down and
> building various other packages of which I knew nothing (Neon, APR,
> BDB, install Perl, Python, etc.). I don't need BDB support, so I
> suppose it isn't really that bad. I will tackle it again when I find
> the time. But it is certainly not standard practice for Windows and
> Mac users to have to compile software from source in order to use
> it. I know it is more common in the unix environment, but unix users
> are very different in terms of their expectations.
I was merely trying to say that I, personally, am not interested in
finding the time to cater to those (very few!) users who absolutely must
upgrade their Windows SVN clients the minute a source release has been
made. That's not the same as saying that Win users should build their
own binaries, of course, and I agree that it's not reasonable to expect
that they would.
(it's interesting, though beside the point that, in this particular
case, it's actually a good thing that I didn't build the distro sooner,
because the ZLib bug was announced just a few hours before I *did* build
them -- so I happily avoided the need to recall a released binary package.)
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Win32 1.2.1
Posted by Scott Palmer <sc...@2connected.org>.
On 8-Jul-05, at 1:20 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
>
>
>> Try to cut some slack. The Win32 binaries have been coming out on
>> almost the same day as the official release of the source for a
>> while now.
>>
> So they have. And all I have to say to anyone who can't wait for a
> few days ubtil I find the time (usually between 2 and 4 a.m.) to
> build the distro is, with great restraint, "build it yourself."
> After all, what's a few days compared to the serveal weeks between
> patch releases?
Please don't assume that I have a complaint against the time you take
to produce Win32 binaries. That is not my point, and I am thankful
that you do it at all.
I was simply expressing the possibility that the subversion team
could officially include Win32 binaries, and perhaps Mac OS X
binaries as part of the official release.. I only suggest it because
I *assume* that building on Win32 and OS X is a requirement for them
to sign-off on the source tarball, so logically the binaries have
already been built.
The current issue with ZLib, of which I don't know any of the
details, could have been announced on the list as well, just to give
the community an idea of what was going on.
I would build it myself, but I attempted that with 1.1.0 and found
that setting up a Windows machine to build subversion was extremely
painful.. amounting to a wild goose chase of tracking down and
building various other packages of which I knew nothing (Neon, APR,
BDB, install Perl, Python, etc.). I don't need BDB support, so I
suppose it isn't really that bad. I will tackle it again when I find
the time. But it is certainly not standard practice for Windows and
Mac users to have to compile software from source in order to use
it. I know it is more common in the unix environment, but unix users
are very different in terms of their expectations.
I do happen to build subversion on my Mac, because it was simpler
than setting up the build on Windows. (still without BDB support)
Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Win32 1.2.1
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Mark Phippard wrote:
>Scott Palmer <sc...@digital-rapids.com> wrote on 07/08/2005 08:48:50 AM:
>
>
>
>>On 8-Jul-05, at 3:22 AM, Miha Vitorovic wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>>I've seen it said that it may take a week or more to get the Win32
>>>version
>>>of Subversion after a new release, but I guess I got spoiled by quick
>>>releases of the last few versions. So any news on the Win32 release of
>>>v1.2.1? Yes/No/Maybe?
>>>
>>>
>>I think the Subversion team should re-think their "source release
>>only" policy. Subversion is NOT easy to build on Windows, and there
>>are so many things that can be tweaked (e.g. version of BDB, Apache
>>stuff, etc.) that I'm left wondering if I did build it how different
>>would it be from what the devs were testing with.
>>
>>I understand that they simply don't have the resources to build for
>>every flavour of unix supported, but Win32 covers a lot of machines
>>with a single build.
>>
>> From what I can tell somebody on the dev team has to build it on
>>Windows before signing off on the release tarball.. so why not make a
>>zip of the Win32 binaries available at the same time the source it
>>released?
>>
>>
>
>Since virtually all Win32 users seems to rely on the released binaries, I
>think that the builder is waiting to see if an official patch is going to
>be made available for the serious zlib security vulnerability that was
>announced this week. This is one of those can't win situations. He could
>have released right away, but with a known security vulnerability, or he
>can sit in limbo to see if a hinted at new version is going to be made
>available.
>
>
I actually had the 1.2.1 binaries ready to ship when I noticed the post
about the ZLib 1.2.2 vulnerability. Since then I've found a proposed
patch, but I've chosen not to trust it (read: I don't understand it) and
so I'm waiting for ZLib 1.2.3.
>Try to cut some slack. The Win32 binaries have been coming out on almost
>the same day as the official release of the source for a while now.
>
>
So they have. And all I have to say to anyone who can't wait for a few
days ubtil I find the time (usually between 2 and 4 a.m.) to build the
distro is, with great restraint, "build it yourself." After all, what's
a few days compared to the serveal weeks between patch releases?
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Win32 1.2.1
Posted by Miha Vitorovic <mv...@nil.si>.
Mark Phippard <Ma...@softlanding.com> wrote on 08.07.2005 14:57:19:
>
> Since virtually all Win32 users seems to rely on the released binaries,
I
> think that the builder is waiting to see if an official patch is going
to
> be made available for the serious zlib security vulnerability that was
> announced this week. This is one of those can't win situations. He
could
> have released right away, but with a known security vulnerability, or he
> can sit in limbo to see if a hinted at new version is going to be made
> available.
>
> Try to cut some slack. The Win32 binaries have been coming out on
almost
> the same day as the official release of the source for a while now.
Sure, no problem. It's just that this explanation was missing until now.
Cheers,
---
Miha Vitorovic
Inženir v tehničnem področju
Customer Support Engineer
NIL Data Communications, Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Phone +386 1 4746 500 Fax +386 1 4746 501 http://www.NIL.si
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Win32 1.2.1
Posted by Mark Phippard <Ma...@softlanding.com>.
Scott Palmer <sc...@digital-rapids.com> wrote on 07/08/2005 08:48:50 AM:
>
> On 8-Jul-05, at 3:22 AM, Miha Vitorovic wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've seen it said that it may take a week or more to get the Win32
> > version
> > of Subversion after a new release, but I guess I got spoiled by quick
> > releases of the last few versions. So any news on the Win32 release of
> > v1.2.1? Yes/No/Maybe?
>
> I think the Subversion team should re-think their "source release
> only" policy. Subversion is NOT easy to build on Windows, and there
> are so many things that can be tweaked (e.g. version of BDB, Apache
> stuff, etc.) that I'm left wondering if I did build it how different
> would it be from what the devs were testing with.
>
> I understand that they simply don't have the resources to build for
> every flavour of unix supported, but Win32 covers a lot of machines
> with a single build.
>
> From what I can tell somebody on the dev team has to build it on
> Windows before signing off on the release tarball.. so why not make a
> zip of the Win32 binaries available at the same time the source it
> released?
Since virtually all Win32 users seems to rely on the released binaries, I
think that the builder is waiting to see if an official patch is going to
be made available for the serious zlib security vulnerability that was
announced this week. This is one of those can't win situations. He could
have released right away, but with a known security vulnerability, or he
can sit in limbo to see if a hinted at new version is going to be made
available.
Try to cut some slack. The Win32 binaries have been coming out on almost
the same day as the official release of the source for a while now.
Mark
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Win32 1.2.1
Posted by Scott Palmer <sc...@digital-rapids.com>.
On 8-Jul-05, at 3:22 AM, Miha Vitorovic wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've seen it said that it may take a week or more to get the Win32
> version
> of Subversion after a new release, but I guess I got spoiled by quick
> releases of the last few versions. So any news on the Win32 release of
> v1.2.1? Yes/No/Maybe?
I think the Subversion team should re-think their "source release
only" policy. Subversion is NOT easy to build on Windows, and there
are so many things that can be tweaked (e.g. version of BDB, Apache
stuff, etc.) that I'm left wondering if I did build it how different
would it be from what the devs were testing with.
I understand that they simply don't have the resources to build for
every flavour of unix supported, but Win32 covers a lot of machines
with a single build.
From what I can tell somebody on the dev team has to build it on
Windows before signing off on the release tarball.. so why not make a
zip of the Win32 binaries available at the same time the source it
released?
Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org