Andrew Ruder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 01:32:57AM +0200, Helge Hess wrote: [...] > > b) Svn is not a viable option for GNU projects due to licensing > > issues (is this really true?) > > There is obviously no issue or gcc wouldn't be moving to it next week.
That was not the claim. SVN is under a GPL-incompatible licence. In practical terms, this makes any GPL application linking with it undistributable, IIRC. So, forget having a slick GPL'd GNUstep app to manage your archive. [...] > I can't agree with you more here. With the exception of finding a > server, moving from CVS => Subversion brings many benefits for not a lot > of effort. The learning curve is non-existant. Assuming we find a > place that everyone agrees with for hosting, I can only ask one > question: > > Why not? It's more software for people to use, and apparently big software at that. According to http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/INSTALL the prerequisites for compiling include the Apache Web Server. Selecting the client package on a debian testing machine invites nearly 5Mb to install, compared with just over 1Mb for CVS. That's quite an overhead for something which seems very likely not to be the long-term winner, because it doesn't solve the client-server problem at all. If the trees head off into the subversion mists, can there be patches and daily-snapshots for the rest of the world, please? What's the tearing hurry to rush down a dead end? At the speed at which git-based tools seem to be converging - arch was heading git-wards before the latest twist in the road, darcs has --enable-git, monotone is doing something with git that I don't yet understand, nor do I fathom Mercurial - it might be all over bar the porting in a few months. Oh well, at least no-one suggested BitKeeper. ;-) _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
