Re: Minor patch for Makefile.in

On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 12:11:31AM -0700, Mo DeJong wrote:
>...
> That sounds fine. It looks like these two changes will also be needed:

Checked in. Thanks!

>...
> Also, there seems to be a big problem in build.conf WRT libsvn_fs.
> If the build is not configured with libsvn_fs then a `make`
> works just fine but a `make install` will blow up since
> the install-lib: rule wants to install everything.

Urk. Quite right. I'll have to think on that one...

The idiot/temp solution is to add "-" to each of the commands to ignore any
potential exit code :-)

> Don't you think life would be a lot easier if folks just
> assume that the fs will always get built and add
> my patch to build berkeley db from the src tree?

It would be nice to simply assume that DB3 is present and build everything.
I'm not sure if we want to do that, though. That would preclude somebody
grabbing the source and just building a client.

I'm not sure which side of the fence I'm on with expecting DB3 to be
present.

And I really don't think expecting the DB3 distro to be in our source tree
is a good thing. It is readily available as RPMs that people can simply
install. Neon and APR aren't as old or readily available, so it makes a bit
of sense to include them. We could conceivably just punt Neon, too. APR is
tougher, as we use some of its .m4 files; we'll use its libtool; etc.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org