Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2008 6:40 PM, Max Bowsher <maxb1_at_ukf.net> wrote:
>> True, it changes a default, but its a weird and confusing behaviour that
>> shouldn't be default and is really only of interest to people doing
>> advanced packaging of Subversion (such that various libsvn_fs|ra_foo can
>> be placed in separate rpms/debs).
>>
>> As for the name, I think there's sufficient prior use of the term in APR
>> and HTTPD to justify leaving the option name alone at least until
>> Subversion 2.x for compatibility's sake.
>
> I don't think either APR or HTTP Server's configure options are even
> remotely like what we're trying to do here in Subversion. Plus, if
> you make the claim that we can't rename the option until 2.x, then we
> can't change the default until 2.x.
I/epg are not suggesting changing the default from enable to disable -
rather, the proposed change is to fix running part of the 'enable'
codepath when 'disable' is the selected setting, so I view it as being
purely a bugfix in nature.
> FWIW, I think it's fine to rename it - as the downstream packagers
> will figure it out (provided it makes an appearance in CHANGES). I'm
> just tired of constantly being befuddled whenever this silly argument
> rears its ugly head. (I don't care if this doesn't make it into 1.5.)
Well, ok, you've already renamed it, so let's move on.
>> But we should improve the
>> configure help string for it to say something like:
>> [[[
>> Do not link the RA and FS library implementations to the core libraries.
>> Instead load them at run-time as DSOs/loadable modules using dlopen() or
>> equivalent.
>> ]]]
>
> That's not quite true, is it? We can often do both. So you can add
> in a later-compiled RA or FS library after the fact and have it 'work'
> in addition to your normally linked RA/FS modules. But, only when
> this option is set... -- justin
You're saying that someone might run a build of Subversion with BDB, and
then transplant the resulting libsvn_fs_base into an installation
compiled without BDB? Given that our build system makes no allowance
whatsoever for building individual fs|ra modules apart from the main
build, I don't think this is a scenario we should be concerned with in
the slightest, whereas the problem epg described in the initial mail in
this thread is a real one.
Max.
Received on 2008-02-20 09:35:50 CET