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

Re: [PATCH] Have svn require Neon 0.19.3

From: Ben Collins <bcollins_at_debian.org>
Date: 2002-02-26 04:18:22 CET

On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 09:50:32PM -0500, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 09:40:35PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Not to mention that in the world where software is installed via
> > packaged (like 99.999% of Linux systems), strictly enforcing a version
> > like this makes it extrememly difficult to maintain from the
> > distribution standpoint (which is the standpoint I have to look at it
> > from).
> i don't quite agree... the specific version of neon doesn't seem to be
> that much of a problem from a packaging standpoint IMO. packages
> should be built from releases, which are not too frequent, and
> requiring specific versions of libraries for a release makes sense to
> me. you get a more stable debugging environment for handling bug
> reports from users.

We may start the next Debian release with neon 0.19.2 (built seperately
from subversion of course). Months later while the dist is still in
development, neon 0.19.7 comes around. While subversion may still run
against this newer lib, it suddenly can't be built against it anymore
(since 0.19.2 and 0.19.7 can't be installed at the same time, because
the soname for both is libneon.so.19).

So, we enter a never ending cycle of strict deps, that do not need to
occur. Neon maintainer can't force/restrict updates just because of
subversion, while the subversion maintainer can't update to newer
versions of subversion unless the _exact_ neon lib is available. This is

> i have the same issues to deal with for FreeBSD ports of subversion,
> and the answer is just to only upgrade the version of neon when a
> release of subversion requires it, not when the development version of
> svn requires it. developers should be able to handle these sort of
> things.

This may be ok for FreeBSD where the release is built from an entire
tree. Debian is a little different where different people maintain
different parts of the dist. One maintainer having to rely on such
strict updates of the other is not a good thing, especially when talking
about 10 architectures that also need to stay in sync.

Do you build neon statically with subversion in FreeBSD, or as a
seperate self-standing package? That makes all the difference in the
world. Is subversion actually a part of FreeBSD proper?

/       Ben Collins    --    Debian GNU/Linux    --    WatchGuard.com      \
`          bcollins@debian.org   --   Ben.Collins@watchguard.com           '
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:37:09 2006

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.