[suggest] Subversion 1.4 package broken
Tim.Whittington at orionhealth.com
Thu Jan 18 20:55:39 CET 2007
OK, good reasons.
We've got some software with SVN 1.4 dependencies (however sane that may be), which is why it's important to us.
How hard would it be to get SVN building with a statically linked apr - is this something I could help with? (I know my way round a Linux build, but RPM builds are somewhat new to me).
>>> On 19/01/2007 at 6:04 a.m., in message <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701181749200.23504 at horsea.3ti.be>, Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Tim Whittington wrote:
> > >>> On 16/01/2007 at 8:27 p.m., in message <45AC7E5B.8030607 at karan.org>, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote:
> > Tim Whittington wrote:
> > > The Subversion 1.4 package appears to be broken.
> > > The build logs indicate that this is a missing dependency on apr,
> > > which was introduced starting with Subversion 1.4 (the <= 1.3 builds
> > > appear fine).
> > >
> > > There's an apr directory on DAGs old site, but it's not in the
> > > package listing.
> > >
> > > There do appear to be fairly up-to-date RPM builds of apr (and
> > > apr-util, apr-devel, apr-util-devel) on the Apache download site
> > > (http://apache.hoxt.com/apr/binaries/rpm/).
> > >
> > > Would it be possible to get this dependency sorted?
> > not onto the EL4 repo's please! unless svn can be built with the apr
> > stuff statically included within the svn packages.
> > Upgrading the distro apr-* is not going to be very nice for all the
> > other things that also depend on it. ( and the pcre issue too )
> Are there packages with exact dependencies that upgrading apr would break?
> I managed to upgrade all the apr packages from 0.9.4 to 0.9.12 as all the deps I had were >= 0.9.4.
> Post upgrade , I don't have a problem with httpd, httpd-devel etc. etc.
The issue really is whether people would want that, even if it doesn't
seem to break anything. This thing comes up from time to time and I'm
between a rock and a hard place here. Either I override base (upstream)
packages and I get half of the userbase against me, or I don't and I got
the other half screaming for something.
apr to me seems something that other stuff rely on. I cannot
jeopardize other people's systems upgrading it. Even though people are
responsible for their own systems and I do not guarantee anything...
Fact is that doing things like that could simplify my work immensly (like
upgrading rpm, make and other basic tools) but then there wouldn't be any
difference between distributions anymore if I go and start upgrading
gnome, glibc, the kernel and what not to make this or that work.
We'd end up being another Fedora project :)
That's why we could do it statically (like is done with subversion 1.3) or
we simply say that if you need subversion 1.4, you need to upgrade to EL5
(whenever it is ready).
There are many reasons why someone would want to have subversion 1.4, I
can imagine. But are these really that important ? subversion 1.3 is
working fine over here.
-- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the users