On 2011-06-14 11:53, Mike Meyer wrote: > For most unix and unix-like systems, a more appropriate requirement > would be "is available from the package system". I.e. - it's something > that can be trivially installed, without having to configure or build > or chase dependencies for it.
I'm jumping in here without reading the whole thread, but may I just point out that once autotools has been made to work *fairly* well, it should be possible to find at least a Fedora "maintainer" to pick up the relatively minor additional task of making an RPM and getting it into Fedora's "yum" repository. This in turn should make it easier for other distributions to package it. And that route should take care of many people's needs (for Linux at least). But autotools should come first as it both supports the above and goes at least a long way to helping all the other folks who aren't plugged into some Linux distribution's binary package system. I know nothing about the Mac, but it's worth noting that Fedora has a very extensive system for building Windows binaries now, using mingw (i.e. building them *within* the same packaging system used to build the Linux RPMs -- cross-compiling on Linux). I wish I knew more about it. But I see the mingw versions of libraries for a long list of things flying by as I rapidly scan the nightly build report. I'd be surprised if those didn't cover everything Fossil was dependent on. Perhaps the same "maintainer" who picks up Fossil can be persuaded to do a Windows package too. (I'm not sure what form the "package" takes for Windows.) Oh! Googling just gave me the link on this topic: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW . Well, that's more than *I* can digest right now! But perhaps someone will be interested enough to investigate further. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
