Mo DeJong <mdejong@cygnus.com> writes:
> Because, he would have run ./configure, it would have
> printed a warning, he would have pulled down the
> tar ball and then rerun configure. He could also rerun
> configure an pass in a --with-berkeley-db option,
> but the point of my patch is to avoid that. There
> is no modification to ./autogen.sh to require a db
> dir because that would make it hard to use with
> an installed version. That was in fact the reason
> given for rejecting the patch in a earlier form.
Thanks for the explanation.
I'm still confused, though. Sorry if I'm being dense, here's my
confusion:
Jon said (or implied, maybe?) that his Debian system's native db
*already* claimed to be the correct version, that is, the version our
configure script looks for. However, something about the Debian
package was messed up, and so it still didn't work for him when he
actually ran Subversion.
That's my understanding of his post, anyway.
If that's true, let's look at the same situation with your patch
applied. You claim ./configure would have given a warning. Why would
it do that? What would that warning be based on? As far as configure
can tell, his system does have the correct db, so it shouldn't tell
him to download the tarball, right?
None of this is an argument against your patch, by the way. I think
the patch implements a good goal, and we're going to examine it soon,
many apologies for the delay.
I'm just confused by your claim that the patch would have helped Jon;
and worried that perhaps this indicates there's something important
about your patch that we're not understanding...
Best,
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:33 2006