Re: [PATCH] Reworking INSTALL

On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 02:23:25PM -0800, Bruce Atherton wrote:
> Garrett, thanks for catching that problem. I originally documented Neon as
> optional, but then I ran across this in the original INSTALL file:
>
> If you don't see ra_local, it probably means that Berkeley DB
> wasn't found when compiling your client binary. If you don't
> see ra_dav, then something is very wrong; most likely your
> dynamic loader/linker can't find libsvn_ra_dav.so (see section
> I.B above.)
>
> Since Neon is required for the client to support ra_dav, I ass-u-me'd that
> this meant that Neon was now required without actually checking it. So
> should this passage be altered to reflect the fact that "very wrong" may
> only mean that Neon is not included? Or am I unique in finding it
> misleading?

actually, it turns out i was mistaken. i just tried to build without
neon, and configure bails out. personally, this seems wrong to me...
is there any reason we're doing things this way? what's wrong with
building a version of svn without ra_dav? it just seems arbitrary,
especialy since we do allow you to build without ra_local.

-garrett

-- 
garrett rooney                     Unix was not designed to stop you from 
rooneg@electricjellyfish.net       doing stupid things, because that would  
http://electricjellyfish.net/      stop you from doing clever things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org