You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Jeremy Whitlock <jc...@gmail.com> on 2008/10/07 04:51:10 UTC
Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Hi All,
What do you think about me switching the packaging around for
Subversion on OSX? (http://www.collab.net/downloads/community/) What
I'd like to do is deliver Subversion as an Umbrella Framework
(http://tinyurl.com/OSX-Framework-Anatomy) where each Subversion dep
is its own nested Framework. Below is a small list of benefits:
* Multiple versions of Subversion coexisting on the same box
* The ability to build Subversion-based apps
* Potentially smaller installation packages after the initial
installer with dependencies is installed
* Less obtrusive to Subversion's developers
Now, the packaging of the binary and the functionality of the binary
would not change. This would be seamless to the end user other than
the ability to have multiple versions of Subversion installed at the
same time. What do you guys think?
--
Take care,
Jeremy Whitlock
http://www.thoughtspark.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Travis <sv...@castle.fastmail.fm>.
On Oct 7, 2008, at 1:06 AM, Jeremy Whitlock wrote:
>> Seems fine, but where's the catch? Why would we NOT do this?
>
> I'm actually not sure. My initial approach was to package just like
> any other application on a Unix/Unix-based platform, which is why it
> is the way it is now. But as I dig deeper into OSX development, I
> think a Framework is the way to go.
Are there any authorization requirements, like that a user be an
admin or root(-equiv)?
Or can it be done so that normal users can still install?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Travis <sv...@castle.fastmail.fm>.
On Oct 7, 2008, at 1:06 AM, Jeremy Whitlock wrote:
>> Seems fine, but where's the catch? Why would we NOT do this?
>
> I'm actually not sure. My initial approach was to package just like
> any other application on a Unix/Unix-based platform, which is why it
> is the way it is now. But as I dig deeper into OSX development, I
> think a Framework is the way to go.
Are there any authorization requirements, like that a user be an
admin or root(-equiv)?
Or can it be done so that normal users can still install?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Jeremy Whitlock <jc...@gmail.com>.
> Seems fine, but where's the catch? Why would we NOT do this?
I'm actually not sure. My initial approach was to package just like
any other application on a Unix/Unix-based platform, which is why it
is the way it is now. But as I dig deeper into OSX development, I
think a Framework is the way to go. Not only could the binary benefit
from this but we could also enhance the Subversion build
infrastructure to enable this procedure, instead of doing it manually.
Python already enabes you to build Python as a Framework when
building on OSX.
--
Take care,
Jeremy Whitlock
http://www.thoughtspark.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Jeremy Whitlock <jc...@gmail.com>.
> Seems fine, but where's the catch? Why would we NOT do this?
I'm actually not sure. My initial approach was to package just like
any other application on a Unix/Unix-based platform, which is why it
is the way it is now. But as I dig deeper into OSX development, I
think a Framework is the way to go. Not only could the binary benefit
from this but we could also enhance the Subversion build
infrastructure to enable this procedure, instead of doing it manually.
Python already enabes you to build Python as a Framework when
building on OSX.
--
Take care,
Jeremy Whitlock
http://www.thoughtspark.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Seems fine, but where's the catch? Why would we NOT do this?
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Jeremy Whitlock <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
> What do you think about me switching the packaging around for
> Subversion on OSX? (http://www.collab.net/downloads/community/) What
> I'd like to do is deliver Subversion as an Umbrella Framework
> (http://tinyurl.com/OSX-Framework-Anatomy) where each Subversion dep
> is its own nested Framework. Below is a small list of benefits:
>
> * Multiple versions of Subversion coexisting on the same box
> * The ability to build Subversion-based apps
> * Potentially smaller installation packages after the initial
> installer with dependencies is installed
> * Less obtrusive to Subversion's developers
>
> Now, the packaging of the binary and the functionality of the binary
> would not change. This would be seamless to the end user other than
> the ability to have multiple versions of Subversion installed at the
> same time. What do you guys think?
>
> --
> Take care,
>
> Jeremy Whitlock
> http://www.thoughtspark.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Ben Collins-Sussman
<su...@red-bean.com> wrote:
> I think the ultimate definition of success here would be to see some
> future version of XCode depend on it. :-)
Since OS X 10.5 already includes svn out of the box, if we had a
framework functionality, I'd bet that a framework might (eventually)
make it into a future OS X release pretty easily. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Jeremy Whitlock <jc...@gmail.com>.
> As gstein said, I think that if the framework existed and were easy to
> install everywhere, then GUI apps like SCPlugin, Versions, etc. would
> start to take advantage of it. Not at first, but the availability of
> such a thing is what attracts 3rd parties to start using it as a
> 'standard'. No project *wants* to keep reinventing the wheel of
> building and shipping svn libraries; they only do it because there's
> no standard component to depend on.
Agreed.
> I think the ultimate definition of success here would be to see some
> future version of XCode depend on it. :-)
That would be cool.
--
Take care,
Jeremy Whitlock
http://www.thoughtspark.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Ben Collins-Sussman
<su...@red-bean.com> wrote:
> I think the ultimate definition of success here would be to see some
> future version of XCode depend on it. :-)
Since OS X 10.5 already includes svn out of the box, if we had a
framework functionality, I'd bet that a framework might (eventually)
make it into a future OS X release pretty easily. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Jeremy Whitlock <jc...@gmail.com>.
> As gstein said, I think that if the framework existed and were easy to
> install everywhere, then GUI apps like SCPlugin, Versions, etc. would
> start to take advantage of it. Not at first, but the availability of
> such a thing is what attracts 3rd parties to start using it as a
> 'standard'. No project *wants* to keep reinventing the wheel of
> building and shipping svn libraries; they only do it because there's
> no standard component to depend on.
Agreed.
> I think the ultimate definition of success here would be to see some
> future version of XCode depend on it. :-)
That would be cool.
--
Take care,
Jeremy Whitlock
http://www.thoughtspark.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@red-bean.com>.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps using the Framework is easier, not sure, but since an
> application cannot rely on it existing I'd expect each app to build
> and ship their own framework. So I just do not see the benefit.
As gstein said, I think that if the framework existed and were easy to
install everywhere, then GUI apps like SCPlugin, Versions, etc. would
start to take advantage of it. Not at first, but the availability of
such a thing is what attracts 3rd parties to start using it as a
'standard'. No project *wants* to keep reinventing the wheel of
building and shipping svn libraries; they only do it because there's
no standard component to depend on.
Python is much the same way on a mac. Many times I've gone to install
a python app on mac, and seen the installation instructions as "make
sure you have the python framework installed; if not, go get it from
_here_."
I think the ultimate definition of success here would be to see some
future version of XCode depend on it. :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Jeremy Whitlock <jc...@gmail.com>.
> I am not saying that a framework would be bad, although the Apple docs
> imply there is some marginal cost to using them. I am saying the
> improvements by doing this are likely to be small and it probably
> involves a lot of work to get our build system modified to do this. I
> do not see the value. Jeremy works on SVN on his own time and has two
> young kids. I'd rather see him use his talents on areas that bring
> more value. If this is something he is motivated to do, as he is with
> the new Python bindings, then great he should go for it. If he is
> asking for opinions, I am saying I do not see the value of this
> justifying the effort. If he wants to make SVN a great OSX app, there
> are certainly much bigger problems than this, such as the Unicode
> encoding problems and the WC redesign you are working on.
I appreciate the feedback. That was the purpose of this. While I do
plan to continue to contribute to other, more valuable parts of
Subversion, I still think there are two major benefits to at least
having the option of a framework:
* Multiple installed, isolated versions of Subversion at the same time
(Right now, we backup and then install over the previous version.)
* The ability to build against Subversion easier
I don't mind either way. I just thought this was worth mentioning
since it had been brought up a few times, even from a Subversion
developer asking why I didn't deliver it as a framework. I really
think this is productive even if we decide not to do this.
--
Take care,
Jeremy Whitlock
http://www.thoughtspark.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@red-bean.com>.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps using the Framework is easier, not sure, but since an
> application cannot rely on it existing I'd expect each app to build
> and ship their own framework. So I just do not see the benefit.
As gstein said, I think that if the framework existed and were easy to
install everywhere, then GUI apps like SCPlugin, Versions, etc. would
start to take advantage of it. Not at first, but the availability of
such a thing is what attracts 3rd parties to start using it as a
'standard'. No project *wants* to keep reinventing the wheel of
building and shipping svn libraries; they only do it because there's
no standard component to depend on.
Python is much the same way on a mac. Many times I've gone to install
a python app on mac, and seen the installation instructions as "make
sure you have the python framework installed; if not, go get it from
_here_."
I think the ultimate definition of success here would be to see some
future version of XCode depend on it. :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Jeremy Whitlock <jc...@gmail.com>.
> I am not saying that a framework would be bad, although the Apple docs
> imply there is some marginal cost to using them. I am saying the
> improvements by doing this are likely to be small and it probably
> involves a lot of work to get our build system modified to do this. I
> do not see the value. Jeremy works on SVN on his own time and has two
> young kids. I'd rather see him use his talents on areas that bring
> more value. If this is something he is motivated to do, as he is with
> the new Python bindings, then great he should go for it. If he is
> asking for opinions, I am saying I do not see the value of this
> justifying the effort. If he wants to make SVN a great OSX app, there
> are certainly much bigger problems than this, such as the Unicode
> encoding problems and the WC redesign you are working on.
I appreciate the feedback. That was the purpose of this. While I do
plan to continue to contribute to other, more valuable parts of
Subversion, I still think there are two major benefits to at least
having the option of a framework:
* Multiple installed, isolated versions of Subversion at the same time
(Right now, we backup and then install over the previous version.)
* The ability to build against Subversion easier
I don't mind either way. I just thought this was worth mentioning
since it had been brought up a few times, even from a Subversion
developer asking why I didn't deliver it as a framework. I really
think this is productive even if we decide not to do this.
--
Take care,
Jeremy Whitlock
http://www.thoughtspark.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:58 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>...
>> I am not sure the results would justify the effort. The benefit of a
>> framework would only be realized if several OSX Subversion clients
>> were going to use and share it. I am skeptical that would happen
>
> Um... that seems like false logic. If we package it as a Framework,
> *then* applications can start to use it.
>
> If we never package it as a Framework, then applications will *never*
> be able to use it (easily).
>
> Some time sunk into creating a Framework, in return for saving a lot
> of downstream users the time to use stuff right from our build? That
> seems like a win to me.
Perhaps using the Framework is easier, not sure, but since an
application cannot rely on it existing I'd expect each app to build
and ship their own framework. So I just do not see the benefit.
>> unless they were all also going to agree to work against the binaries
>> provided by CollabNet. The Apple docs you linked to seemed to suggest
>
> "provided by CollabNet" ... um... so? What about binaries provided by others?
I am not trying to be controversial here, I really do not care where
they are from. My point is that if there is not a canonical
distribution, and currently there isn't, I do not see the benefit.
Neither commercial or open source OSX apps are likely going to want to
direct you to download a package and install it. I suppose Apple
would eventually pick up these changes in the OS, but we know they are
not going to stay current with SVN releases so I do not see people
using their version either.
>> that using a Framework does not make sense unless there are going to
>> be applications build that use it. If it is just the command line
>> then it is unneeded overhead.
>>
>> Those same docs also discourage the use of Umbrella Frameworks and
>> seem to claim that is not the way to go.
>
> Hmm? Was Jeremy suggesting an Umbrella? It sounded like just one
> Framework Kinda unclear here, but I don't see how providing more
> options to downstream users can be a Bad Thing.
Jeremy said he envisioned using an Umbrella Framework.
I am not saying that a framework would be bad, although the Apple docs
imply there is some marginal cost to using them. I am saying the
improvements by doing this are likely to be small and it probably
involves a lot of work to get our build system modified to do this. I
do not see the value. Jeremy works on SVN on his own time and has two
young kids. I'd rather see him use his talents on areas that bring
more value. If this is something he is motivated to do, as he is with
the new Python bindings, then great he should go for it. If he is
asking for opinions, I am saying I do not see the value of this
justifying the effort. If he wants to make SVN a great OSX app, there
are certainly much bigger problems than this, such as the Unicode
encoding problems and the WC redesign you are working on.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:58 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>...
>> I am not sure the results would justify the effort. The benefit of a
>> framework would only be realized if several OSX Subversion clients
>> were going to use and share it. I am skeptical that would happen
>
> Um... that seems like false logic. If we package it as a Framework,
> *then* applications can start to use it.
>
> If we never package it as a Framework, then applications will *never*
> be able to use it (easily).
>
> Some time sunk into creating a Framework, in return for saving a lot
> of downstream users the time to use stuff right from our build? That
> seems like a win to me.
Perhaps using the Framework is easier, not sure, but since an
application cannot rely on it existing I'd expect each app to build
and ship their own framework. So I just do not see the benefit.
>> unless they were all also going to agree to work against the binaries
>> provided by CollabNet. The Apple docs you linked to seemed to suggest
>
> "provided by CollabNet" ... um... so? What about binaries provided by others?
I am not trying to be controversial here, I really do not care where
they are from. My point is that if there is not a canonical
distribution, and currently there isn't, I do not see the benefit.
Neither commercial or open source OSX apps are likely going to want to
direct you to download a package and install it. I suppose Apple
would eventually pick up these changes in the OS, but we know they are
not going to stay current with SVN releases so I do not see people
using their version either.
>> that using a Framework does not make sense unless there are going to
>> be applications build that use it. If it is just the command line
>> then it is unneeded overhead.
>>
>> Those same docs also discourage the use of Umbrella Frameworks and
>> seem to claim that is not the way to go.
>
> Hmm? Was Jeremy suggesting an Umbrella? It sounded like just one
> Framework Kinda unclear here, but I don't see how providing more
> options to downstream users can be a Bad Thing.
Jeremy said he envisioned using an Umbrella Framework.
I am not saying that a framework would be bad, although the Apple docs
imply there is some marginal cost to using them. I am saying the
improvements by doing this are likely to be small and it probably
involves a lot of work to get our build system modified to do this. I
do not see the value. Jeremy works on SVN on his own time and has two
young kids. I'd rather see him use his talents on areas that bring
more value. If this is something he is motivated to do, as he is with
the new Python bindings, then great he should go for it. If he is
asking for opinions, I am saying I do not see the value of this
justifying the effort. If he wants to make SVN a great OSX app, there
are certainly much bigger problems than this, such as the Unicode
encoding problems and the WC redesign you are working on.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:58 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
> I am not sure the results would justify the effort. The benefit of a
> framework would only be realized if several OSX Subversion clients
> were going to use and share it. I am skeptical that would happen
Um... that seems like false logic. If we package it as a Framework,
*then* applications can start to use it.
If we never package it as a Framework, then applications will *never*
be able to use it (easily).
Some time sunk into creating a Framework, in return for saving a lot
of downstream users the time to use stuff right from our build? That
seems like a win to me.
> unless they were all also going to agree to work against the binaries
> provided by CollabNet. The Apple docs you linked to seemed to suggest
"provided by CollabNet" ... um... so? What about binaries provided by others?
> that using a Framework does not make sense unless there are going to
> be applications build that use it. If it is just the command line
> then it is unneeded overhead.
>
> Those same docs also discourage the use of Umbrella Frameworks and
> seem to claim that is not the way to go.
Hmm? Was Jeremy suggesting an Umbrella? It sounded like just one
Framework Kinda unclear here, but I don't see how providing more
options to downstream users can be a Bad Thing.
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:58 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
> I am not sure the results would justify the effort. The benefit of a
> framework would only be realized if several OSX Subversion clients
> were going to use and share it. I am skeptical that would happen
Um... that seems like false logic. If we package it as a Framework,
*then* applications can start to use it.
If we never package it as a Framework, then applications will *never*
be able to use it (easily).
Some time sunk into creating a Framework, in return for saving a lot
of downstream users the time to use stuff right from our build? That
seems like a win to me.
> unless they were all also going to agree to work against the binaries
> provided by CollabNet. The Apple docs you linked to seemed to suggest
"provided by CollabNet" ... um... so? What about binaries provided by others?
> that using a Framework does not make sense unless there are going to
> be applications build that use it. If it is just the command line
> then it is unneeded overhead.
>
> Those same docs also discourage the use of Umbrella Frameworks and
> seem to claim that is not the way to go.
Hmm? Was Jeremy suggesting an Umbrella? It sounded like just one
Framework Kinda unclear here, but I don't see how providing more
options to downstream users can be a Bad Thing.
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Jeremy Whitlock <jc...@gmail.com>.
> I am not sure the results would justify the effort. The benefit of a
> framework would only be realized if several OSX Subversion clients
> were going to use and share it. I am skeptical that would happen
> unless they were all also going to agree to work against the binaries
> provided by CollabNet. The Apple docs you linked to seemed to suggest
> that using a Framework does not make sense unless there are going to
> be applications build that use it. If it is just the command line
> then it is unneeded overhead.
Well, the problem is that the demand has been trickling in. While it
hasn't been overwhelming, it was worth looking into. From a
build/packaging perspective, to build such a framework is a post-build
process where we would create the framework structure using the files
we just built. The fact that Subversion is a command line app doesn't
mean it's not worthy of being a framework. Anything that wants to
package its resources to allow for multiple versions installed at the
same time and/or the ability to build against that application is
candidate for a framework.
> Those same docs also discourage the use of Umbrella Frameworks and
> seem to claim that is not the way to go.
Yeah, I never noticed that before. I like the idea of an Umbrella
Framework but if it's discouraged, we can figure something else out.
Possibly just breaking all delivered deps as its own framework. This
is just an idea at this stage. I want to see what others thought. If
we believe this is worthy of our time, the details can be worked out.
--
Take care,
Jeremy Whitlock
http://www.thoughtspark.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Jeremy Whitlock <jc...@gmail.com>.
> I am not sure the results would justify the effort. The benefit of a
> framework would only be realized if several OSX Subversion clients
> were going to use and share it. I am skeptical that would happen
> unless they were all also going to agree to work against the binaries
> provided by CollabNet. The Apple docs you linked to seemed to suggest
> that using a Framework does not make sense unless there are going to
> be applications build that use it. If it is just the command line
> then it is unneeded overhead.
Well, the problem is that the demand has been trickling in. While it
hasn't been overwhelming, it was worth looking into. From a
build/packaging perspective, to build such a framework is a post-build
process where we would create the framework structure using the files
we just built. The fact that Subversion is a command line app doesn't
mean it's not worthy of being a framework. Anything that wants to
package its resources to allow for multiple versions installed at the
same time and/or the ability to build against that application is
candidate for a framework.
> Those same docs also discourage the use of Umbrella Frameworks and
> seem to claim that is not the way to go.
Yeah, I never noticed that before. I like the idea of an Umbrella
Framework but if it's discouraged, we can figure something else out.
Possibly just breaking all delivered deps as its own framework. This
is just an idea at this stage. I want to see what others thought. If
we believe this is worthy of our time, the details can be worked out.
--
Take care,
Jeremy Whitlock
http://www.thoughtspark.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 12:51 AM, Jeremy Whitlock <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you think about me switching the packaging around for
> Subversion on OSX? (http://www.collab.net/downloads/community/) What
> I'd like to do is deliver Subversion as an Umbrella Framework
> (http://tinyurl.com/OSX-Framework-Anatomy) where each Subversion dep
> is its own nested Framework. Below is a small list of benefits:
>
> * Multiple versions of Subversion coexisting on the same box
> * The ability to build Subversion-based apps
> * Potentially smaller installation packages after the initial
> installer with dependencies is installed
> * Less obtrusive to Subversion's developers
>
> Now, the packaging of the binary and the functionality of the binary
> would not change. This would be seamless to the end user other than
> the ability to have multiple versions of Subversion installed at the
> same time. What do you guys think?
I am not sure the results would justify the effort. The benefit of a
framework would only be realized if several OSX Subversion clients
were going to use and share it. I am skeptical that would happen
unless they were all also going to agree to work against the binaries
provided by CollabNet. The Apple docs you linked to seemed to suggest
that using a Framework does not make sense unless there are going to
be applications build that use it. If it is just the command line
then it is unneeded overhead.
Those same docs also discourage the use of Umbrella Frameworks and
seem to claim that is not the way to go.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 12:51 AM, Jeremy Whitlock <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you think about me switching the packaging around for
> Subversion on OSX? (http://www.collab.net/downloads/community/) What
> I'd like to do is deliver Subversion as an Umbrella Framework
> (http://tinyurl.com/OSX-Framework-Anatomy) where each Subversion dep
> is its own nested Framework. Below is a small list of benefits:
>
> * Multiple versions of Subversion coexisting on the same box
> * The ability to build Subversion-based apps
> * Potentially smaller installation packages after the initial
> installer with dependencies is installed
> * Less obtrusive to Subversion's developers
>
> Now, the packaging of the binary and the functionality of the binary
> would not change. This would be seamless to the end user other than
> the ability to have multiple versions of Subversion installed at the
> same time. What do you guys think?
I am not sure the results would justify the effort. The benefit of a
framework would only be realized if several OSX Subversion clients
were going to use and share it. I am skeptical that would happen
unless they were all also going to agree to work against the binaries
provided by CollabNet. The Apple docs you linked to seemed to suggest
that using a Framework does not make sense unless there are going to
be applications build that use it. If it is just the command line
then it is unneeded overhead.
Those same docs also discourage the use of Umbrella Frameworks and
seem to claim that is not the way to go.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Seems fine, but where's the catch? Why would we NOT do this?
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Jeremy Whitlock <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
> What do you think about me switching the packaging around for
> Subversion on OSX? (http://www.collab.net/downloads/community/) What
> I'd like to do is deliver Subversion as an Umbrella Framework
> (http://tinyurl.com/OSX-Framework-Anatomy) where each Subversion dep
> is its own nested Framework. Below is a small list of benefits:
>
> * Multiple versions of Subversion coexisting on the same box
> * The ability to build Subversion-based apps
> * Potentially smaller installation packages after the initial
> installer with dependencies is installed
> * Less obtrusive to Subversion's developers
>
> Now, the packaging of the binary and the functionality of the binary
> would not change. This would be seamless to the end user other than
> the ability to have multiple versions of Subversion installed at the
> same time. What do you guys think?
>
> --
> Take care,
>
> Jeremy Whitlock
> http://www.thoughtspark.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org