On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 at 14:48, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 15. 7. 2026 13:32, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 at 18:18, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>>
>> Longer term, we could think about getting to a state where our .tar.gz,
>> .tar.bz2, and .zip all have identical content (generated once). Otherwise
>> we risk potential inconsistencies: for example, if someone on Windows
>> downloads subversion-1.14.5.tar.bz2 instead of .zip. And it also makes the
>> release process more complicated, because there is at least 2x different
>> content to check/verify.
>>
>>
>> Unix tarballs are libtoolized and contain generated swig binding code and
>> such. We don't need the libtool bits and don't support pre-generated
>> bindings in the Windows build, so there's a reason why contents are
>> somewhat different. And all the files within the .zip with
>> svn:eol-style=native have CRLF line endings (that's why I use 'diff
>> -qrw` to compare). The latter used to be required because 'cl' and 'msdev'
>> and 'cmd.exe' didn't use to like just LF newlines in source and project
>> files. I suppose that's no longer a concern?
>>
>> Visual Studio and 'cl' work fine with LF these days. I have tested 'cmd'
> and it also works fine, but I won't put my finger on all possible tools.
>
> With the addition of CMake, separate Windows and Unix tarballs may no
> longer hold as an abstraction. Maybe we could just have a CRLF "Windows"
> zip and LF "Unix" tar.gz with identical content?
>
>
>
> So you would keep the results of 'autogen.sh --release' in the .zip?
>

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see a problem here.


> I don't know if the CMake build supports that. The old vcxproj generator
> doesn't. But the autotools build needs that, otherwise builds depend on m4
> and Python and libtoolize etc.
>
CMake has similar targets.cmake that is generated during tarball creation
for the same reason: to not depend on Python.

Also I think we should drop support vcxproj support in the long term.

-- 
Ivan Zhakov

Reply via email to