Peter Davis <pdavis152@attbi.com> writes:
> On Friday 12 April 2002 10:06, you wrote:
> > Peter Davis <pdavis152@attbi.com> writes:
> > > Being just a little competent in C, I fetched the latest subversion
> > > sources and patched in all the changes in the calls to apr_brigade_*(),
> > > which take two arguments instead of one like before. But if people don't
> > > want to do that by hand, it looks like it is no longer possible to build
> > > any current released version of svn with the current apr.
> >
> > I deny that claim. :-)
> >
> > I just updated (just a half-hour ago!) my svn working copy (r1679),
>
> ^^^^^^^
> I'm using r1587, which was the m10.2 release. Something changed between now
> and then: attached is the diff that I made to get 1587 to compile with apache
Wait, some confusion here.
Please don't expect svn 0.10.2 (r1587) to compile against today's
latest APR. Both projects change quickly. Only two things are
guaranteed(*) to work at any given time:
* a posted tarball will compile against the apr that it contains
internally.
* the latest SVN source will compile against the latest APR source.
As Sander said, please do *not* try any other combinations. The
tarballs are meant to "bootstrap" to the latest svn source... not to
compile and then use with the latest httpd/apr server.
(*) By "guaranteed", we mean that the svn developer hordes will -make-
the combination work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Apr 12 20:01:18 2002