This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Subversion package maintainer
- From: Dave Slusher <mailinglist at moribund dot ath dot cx>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 11:53:13 -0500
- Subject: Re: Subversion package maintainer
- References: <email@example.com>
OK, I'm going to bundle all replies in one mail rather than several little ones:
>> This is a client only build."
>I haven't actually *tested* it, but svnserve seems to build fine.
Well, that begs a question. My original intention was to tackle only the client,
and then later on if it seemed like a thing to do and was needed, add the
server. Does it make sense to have two seperate packages for client and server,
have only one package and roll support in for the server whenever, or bite the
bullet and wait to offer a package until I have both parts in it?
>> category: Devel
>> requires: cygwin apache expat
>Why the dependency on apache?
>What do you plan to do about neon, apr and apr-util ?
I really don't know. I took a first stab at this from the subversion docs, but
I'm not 100% sure. I tried to follow the "how to become a package maintainer"
checklist as close to the letter as I could, which says ask if there is an
existing maintainer and propose a setup.hint in the initial message. I haven't
done a lot of the gut work on this yet, since I didn't want to put a lot of
resource in if someone was already doing it. I can send a revised one around in
a day or two, after I have actually tried to assemble a package and tested for
sure what dependencies exist.
The one thing that seems for certain is that y'all are right and I don't need
apache as a package dependency. I think it might be a build dependency, but is
not a runtime one.
Since there appears to be no one else doing this, I'll assume that I should go
ahead full steam and have better answers in a few days.
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/