Re: Avoiding multiple library copies on a system

2012-07-17 Thread Mat Booth
On 13 July 2012 17:34, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 13.07.2012 17:21, Peter Samuelson wrote: >> [Branko Cibej] >>> Like I said in my response to this in the other thread -- API or even >>> ABI compatibility is not the issue. Working copy formats, wire >>> protocol quirks, etc. etc. are more "interesti

Re: Avoiding multiple library copies on a system

2012-07-13 Thread Branko Čibej
On 13.07.2012 17:21, Peter Samuelson wrote: > [Branko Cibej] >> Like I said in my response to this in the other thread -- API or even >> ABI compatibility is not the issue. Working copy formats, wire >> protocol quirks, etc. etc. are more "interesting". And I really don't >> think it's up to us to

Re: Avoiding multiple library copies on a system

2012-07-13 Thread Peter Samuelson
[Branko Cibej] > Like I said in my response to this in the other thread -- API or even > ABI compatibility is not the issue. Working copy formats, wire > protocol quirks, etc. etc. are more "interesting". And I really don't > think it's up to us to tell packagers how to do their stuff. Well, the

Re: Avoiding multiple library copies on a system

2012-07-13 Thread Branko Čibej
On 12.07.2012 21:20, Peter Samuelson wrote: > Reposting under a new thread + subject line, at Daniel's suggestion. > > [Markus Schaber] >> So my personal experience tells me that multiple-client scenarios are >> the common case, and that the deployment strategy (only using linux >> distro packages,

Avoiding multiple library copies on a system

2012-07-12 Thread Peter Samuelson
Reposting under a new thread + subject line, at Daniel's suggestion. [Markus Schaber] > So my personal experience tells me that multiple-client scenarios are > the common case, and that the deployment strategy (only using linux > distro packages, or 3-in-1 bundles like VisualSVN) can reduce that