On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 12:46:54PM +0100, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 05:07:48PM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
> > Is there any chance that RedHat might include Neon in its upcoming release?
> > Any prodding that you could supply? :-)
> Two weeks after the third public beta, I think you can safely bet that
> we can't be adding new packages, ...
Yah. All righty. I didn't know where you guys were in the cycle.
> > I don't know about the timing of the release (and I'm not asking :-), but
> > I'd like to note that Subversion is not (technically) compatible with Apache
> > 2.0.40. If there is any way to get a 2.0.41 into the next RedHat release,
> > that would be a *huge* win.
> ...or making version changes to such a core package as Apache.
> What are the dependencies on Apache-2.0.41, btw? Having Subversion be
Between 2.0.40 and 2.0.41, there were some changes to the error constants in
APR. If Subversion is built against the installed Apache's APR(UTIL) rather
than an in-tree recent copy, then it should actually work fine.
We were just observing problems where SVN was built against a recent APR,
and Apache was using its older/bundled APR.
> so sensitive to the exact version of so many other packages is a real
> pain when trying to get it set up with shared libraries everywhere.
Agreed. But we also need the changes that are in these newer releases.
Bleeding edge and all that :-)
I think a good number of these dependencies are getting easier. For
instance, there was just a 0.9.1 release of APR and APRUTIL. The intent is
to go ahead and make SVN depend on released copies (rather than "get it from
CVS"). Once httpd 2.0.41 is released, then we'll do the same there. Our
previous release tarballs have not been able to target specific versions of
the ASF code.
I suspect that we may end up needing changes to mod_dav, so we'll be wanting
later versions of httpd, but we'll just have to see. I suspect the APR stuff
is pretty stable, unless we move functions in there. And Neon is a moving
target :-) As you can see, we're evolving a whole system, so it is going to
keep demanding bleeding edge. But with some more work in SVN, and the new
version numbers in APR(UTIL), we can now be much more proactive about what
we will compile and run against.
> It's much less of a problem with static libs, of course, but that
> still makes the build more complex, and doesn't eliminate the apache
My hope is that Linux distribution vendors will start installing Apache 2.0.
Subversion ought to be able to just drop right into whatever you guys set
up. If we need a rev of Apache, then (hopefully) we can point people to the
RedHat Updates site before installing SVN.
Yup, a bit messy, but I have high confidence it will settle down. As the
original poster noted, RedHat Null now includes a number of the things that
we want, so SVN users on the new RH will have a much easier setup.
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Fri Sep 13 01:31:02 2002