Re: Is it ok to use apr 1.x instead of in-tree?

On Nov 26, 2004, at 7:03 AM, Alex Holst wrote:

> I have been testing a port of Subversion for OpenBSD, but the porter
> decided to use apr(-util) 1.0 instead of the in-tree versions despite
> my
> warnings. The port was even upgraded to apr(-util) 1.0.1 to fix a crash
> when working on large sets of data. I have previously been involved in
> getting an unauthorized Linux package compiled against apr 1.0 pulled,
> so this worries me.
>
> Has the official advice from the Subversion project changed regarding
> binary compatibility wrt. apr or should I reinforce my warnings to the
> porter?
>

The advice hasn't changed. Subversion will certainly compile against
APR 1.0, but you need to scream huge warnings at users that this will
break binary compatibility with previous versions of APR (and
Subversion).

Rumor has it that the FreeBSD port of Subversion 1.1 is depending on
APR 1.0, and it worries me. I'm not sure who to chastise. :-)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 26 15:46:39 2004