My apologies for posting in HTML and thank you for your response.
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 21:42 +0100, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> On 11/6/07, Paul Orchard <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I am building a server to run Subversion exclusively. I am building all the required modules from source. I have compiled the following packages:
> > Module Version
> > =======================
> > bdb 4.5.20
> > apr 1.2.8
> > apr-util 1.2.8
> > httpd 2.2.4
> > neon 0.26.3
> > python 2.5.1
> > swig 1.3.29
> > subversion 1.4.5
> > I have had a server running Subversion with the above versions for a few months now. This server is not being used for production use yet, it is still being tested. However, some of the versions used above are higher that those specified by the Subversion documentation. For instance the Subversion documentation specifies apr and apr-util versions of 0.9.x, while I am using 1.2.x. and I have disabled the neon version check to use 0.26.3.
> There's no problem to use apr-* from the 1.2.x line, except if you
> want to set up Apache 2.0.x: Apache2.0 has to be built against
The pieces are falling together now. I was concerned because the apr
documentation stated that the 1.2.x range was source and binary
incompatible with the 0.9.x range.
The svn documentation stated using Apache 2.0.x, which is why they also
stated using apr version 0.9.x. Thank you for clarifying, that is good
to know. I will continue using Apache 2.2.x and apr-* 1.2.x.
> But if you're going to use APR 1.2.x (*and* compile it from source
> yourself), why don't you use a newer version? The latest for apr is
> 1.2.11 and looking at the CHANGES file, I'd say at least 2 changes in
> 1.2.9 are very interesting: "Improve thread safety of assorted file_io
> functions" and "Fix file pointer position calculation in
I had noticed the newer versions which was partly why I posted my
original query as I was keen to upgrade apr-* and some other modules as
well. Yesterday I decided to upgrade a few modules to the following:
Module Old New
bdb 4.5.20 4.6.21
apr 1.2.8 1.2.11
apr-util 1.2.8 1.2.10
httpd 2.2.4 2.2.6
neon 0.26.3 0.26.4
Everything compiled fine and I will give it a good test drive now :)
I like the look of dbd (Berkeley DB) 4.6.x, as bdb is my preferred
repository storage type.
> > Before you all scream "fool", as mentioned this is not being used for production. However, I have had no problems with this server yet and so I am very interested to know what versions are being commonly used in production environments by everybody else? Does anybody know of any specific reasons why these versions should not be used?
> There's no reason other than what I said above. Some of these versions
> may not have existed at the time 1.4 was branched, in which case there
> was no way to state support for them in the documentation :-)
> PS: Could you post in plain text instead of HTML please.
This message is intended solely for the use of the individual or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may
contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please notify the
originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not use, copy, alter, or disclose
the contents of this message. All information or opinions expressed in this message and/or any attachments are
those of the author and are not necessarily those of TalkTalk Direct Ltd or its affiliates. TalkTalk Direct Ltd
accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from its use, including damage from virus.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Wed Nov 7 11:04:24 2007