On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> > wrote: > > Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote on Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 21:17:11 -0500: > >> I've gone ahead and updated, and casually tested, my published RHEL 6 > >> compatible RPM building tools with a new 1.8.5 tag at: > >> > >> https://github.com/nkadel/subversion-1.8.x-srpm/tree/1.8.5-0.1 > > > > Perhaps these should be linked to from > http://subversion.apache.org/packages? > > I'd welcome that. They don't contain binary RPM's, partly because I'm > not in a good position to run a secure binary repository with GPG keys > and fully controlled build environments. But they're very useful RPM > building toolkits for developers, and I've sent notes to RHEL and > Fedora about issues I've found.. I've also submitted them to Repoforge > in the past: looks like time to update those rquests. > I think it would be very confusing to include this with our binary packages. This is not a binary package so why would it belong on that list? Wouldn't it make more sense to add a section to INSTALL that points to this along with appropriate instructions for using it? Even if that just says to read the current README? -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
