[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: SVN client vs CVS client

From: Erik Huelsmann <ehuels_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:16:03 +0100

On 1/2/08, Anoop kumar V <anoopkumarv_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2008 6:50 AM, Marc Haisenko <haisenko_at_comdasys.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Anoop kumar V wrote:
> > > I am not sure if this is true. But my observation is this:
> > >
> > > CVS commandline clients seem more user friendly than SVN commandline
> > > clients.
> > >
> > > In CVS, there is just one file that can be placed in the path and
> executed.
> > > There is nothing to install and you do not need superuser / root
> permission
> > > to run the client.
> > >
> > > In SVN, it seems, you need to go through installation - the binaries are
> > > rarely available - it took a long time to find one for Solaris. And the
> > > instructions said that I need to be root to install and use the client.
> > >
> > > I am not complaining here - I am only trying to understand if the above
> is
> > > true. And how does one go about using an svn client (not a server) from
> > > solaris commandline. I cannot install anything, just want to connect &
> > > checkout code kept on an SVN server.
> > >
> > > Is this easily possible?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Anoop
> >
> > Well, this thread got me worried a bit because I think there's a lack of
> basic
> > OS knowledge.
> >
> > Both CVS and SVN can be installed as root and as non-root. Whether you
> need
> > root privileges is not dependent on the program but where you install it.
> > Almost all binary packages are meant to be installed for system-wide usage
> > and this means they want to install in /usr, which needs you to be root to
> > write there. This is true for both CVS and SVN ! Installing /usr/bin/cvs
> > needs root access as well.
> >
> > So if you compile from source and don't want to be root ( e.g. you just
> want to
> > try it out) you'd do something like:
> > ./configure --prefix=/home/me/svn
> > make
> > make install
> >
> > You'd end up with SubVersion in /home/me/svn/bin/svn.
> >
> > Now, as soon as you got it installed (no matter where) you won't need root
> > privileges for either one. You do not need to be root to run SubVersion or
> > CVS.
> >
> > Hope that clarifies things a bit.
> > Bye,
> > Marc
> >
> > --
> > Marc Haisenko
> >
> > Comdasys AG
> > Rüdesheimer Str. 7
> > 80686 München
> > Germany
> >
> > Tel.: +49 (0)89 548 433 321
> >
>
>
>
> Thanks Marc. I think I do have more than basic OS knowledge and would beg to
> differ that this issue is not much related to OS.
>
> What I was trying to highlight is how a CVS executable can just be dropped
> in the PATH. Look at this link:
> http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.cvs.help/browse_thread/thread/b19e87048d2afe98/eb8947608caff299?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#eb8947608caff299
> or click here
>
> It is the same OS - one binary file achieves everything. Now in SVN the
> installation path seems hardwired into the program such that I cannot just
> drop and expect a binary to run as a client. All it needs to do is just
> connect to SVN with the user name and password and check out code.

Which clearly explains there are basic OS understanding issues going
on here. It's not Subversion which requires this behaviour.
Subversion, in contrast to CVS is -however - built up from a number of
libraries. This is a concious design decision to allow easier creation
of other Subversion clients than the standard command line interface.
Something that is non-trivial with CVS.

bye,

Erik.
Received on 2008-01-04 04:57:18 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.