sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergey AT sourcemage.org>
- To: "sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org" <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement
- Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:07:51 -0500
Seth Woolley wrote:
By split I mean stuff that could be compiled with one spell are split into multiple spells that need more enhanced relationships between them than normal dependencies. I don't mean subversion is a split spell, but
Sub-depends is the answer to that I think. But there's only one sub-dependency I see for Subversion: mod_dav inside apache2 if you pick an option to build an apache module. But, you don't need this option for "svn" client or for "svnserve" server to work. If it's not "off" by default already, maybe it should be.
Things like apr|apr0 apr-util|apr0-util for example. It might not even be related to this as it failed on a compile error I didn't take a look
APR is tricky because we still keep Apache 1.3. We either have to remake apr0 spells to coexist with apr spells, or get rid of apr0 completely in favor of building and installing the whole apache 1.3 server in some designated path. This way, we could strongly tie Subversion with apr (1.x).
If there's a way, as mentioned previously, to not require anything apache-related to build svn, I'd be greatly for that. It's not that
Well, is there a way to build everything without glibc ;-)? Subversion needs at least apr and apr-util (both at same version 0.9 or 1.x), and there's no way around that. This design decision was made very long time ago, and I believe part of the reason was to support both Windows and Linux.
All I'm saying is that before we switch to anything, I'd like to know that I can expect our own system to build it reliably in cases we care about. This is currently not the case for subversion.
I agree that whatever we switch to must work, no question about that. However, I'm sorry so say that your experience alone is not representative. Relatively small but important part of the reason of why Subversion spell is more complex than average is that we want to preserve choice, and navigating that choice is not straight-forward sometimes.
Sergey.
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement
, (continued)
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Andrew "ruskie" Levstik, 03/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Pieter Lenaerts, 03/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Andrew, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Mathieu L., 03/19/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Seth Woolley, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Seth Woolley, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Seth Woolley, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Arwed von Merkatz, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SVN as p4 replacement, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote, Andrew, 03/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote, Pieter Lenaerts, 03/15/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote, Andrew, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote, Jeremy Blosser (emrys), 03/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote, Andrew, 03/16/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] SCM perforce replacement was: Re: Grimoire Team Lead vote, Robin Cook, 03/17/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.