> > -Original Message-
> > From: David Darj [mailto:z...@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
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: David Darj [mailto:z...@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 w
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
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.
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: Davi
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
>> 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:z...@alagaza
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.
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 wrote:
>> A minimum l
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 6:28 PM, 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 somethin
Bob Archer wrote on 03/03/2010 04:42:49 PM:
> > Bob Archer 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...) bo
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
> Bob Archer 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
> > > >
Bob Archer 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 Apach
> 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:
rd [mailto:markp...@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
wrote:
I also whish you (or anyone who tries to build subversi
On 2010-03-03 16:25, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
2010/3/3 Mark Phippard:
(...)
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 Visu
hich in theory would make the job at this end much easier.
Regards,
Troy
-Original Message-
From: Mark Phippard [mailto:markp...@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
2010/3/3 Mark Phippard :
>
>> 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 t
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Konstantin Kolinko
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
2010/3/3 Mark Phippard :
> (...)
> 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 als
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Troy Simpson 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 t
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
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
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
bindin
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
Resnik [mailto:resn...@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
Troy Simpson wrote:
For base-level support, we narrowed that down to apache 2.2x. Do we really
need to support all the
> 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 a
2010/3/3 Olivier Sannier
> 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 buil
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 bas
rds,
Troy
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Phippard [mailto:markp...@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
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Johan Corveleyn 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
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Daniel Shahaf 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 usi
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
win
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.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
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 ba
"Troy Simpson" 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
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
>
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 b
: 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
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
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
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
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 bindin
44 matches
Mail list logo
