versions, mismatches, tarballs, etc

On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 02:36:44PM -0700, Sean Russell wrote:
>...
> > There is a target for update builds called "upbuild", and as I said you can
> > get rid of shared libraries if you want to take the chance of breaking your
> > client. However, doing a complete build of absolutely everything from
>
> Yeah, only you have to break your client to upgrade subversion anyway. The
> instructions tell you to remove any existing old libraries. I have a script

I *never* clean out my libraries, and haven't had any problems. I updated
the various bits, compile them, and install them. And it all works fine.

In fact, I'm beginning to get a bit annoyed at this whole push towards "the
tarballs don't do anything except download the head; they are useless
otherwise." If that is the frickin' case, then we should simply publish
tarballs of the HEAD and leave it at that. We shouldn't ever bother with
milestones or snapshot releases or anything.

The fact of the matter is that the downloads *ARE USEFUL*. But people have
problems matching them up with an Apache server. (the tarballs include APR,
APRUTIL, Neon, and Expat, so no problems there) The second problem is that
people are ignoring the included code and using stuff on their system, which
can easily be out of sync.

The real answer here is to turn on the versioning in APR(UTIL) and start
depending upon it. Also to depend more upon the versioning in httpd (see the
ap_mmn.h file); we can have buildcheck.sh verify the values.

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