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

inclusion of r8098 into 1.0

From: <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: 2004-01-08 11:03:06 CET

(Unfortunately I can't commit to the repository at the moment, so I'm casting
my vote here. Sorry about the mess.)

Here's what branches/1.0-stabilization/STATUS has to say about r8098:

> * r8098
> Load RA modules as foo-MAJOR.so.0 instead of foo-MAJOR.so.
> Justification: Low risk; we should be nice to binary packagers.
> Votes:
> +1: ghudson, epg, sussman
> +0: cmpilato

And this is from the commit log:

> From Ben Reser: don't use the .so link when loading RA libraries,
> because .so links are only supposed to be necessary for development.
> Instead use the .so.0 link (APR versioning requires the number
> following .so to be 0).

 1) What does this do to portability? Is the whole dymnamic RA
    loading thing limited to ELF systems, or to Linux systems,
    or what? I know it never worked on Windows, and we never
    promised it did. But what about Mac OS X or HP-UX? I'm
    99% certain it won't work there.

 2) "APR versioning requires the number following .so to be 0"?
    The svn libraries don't follow the APR version numbers, and
    we have a different ABI version (ours is 1, not 0).

In short, I don't understand how this change affects portability, our
dependencies on the APR version, etc. I also don't know how often this
feature is used at all, and how often it's tested.

-1 for now.
At the very least I'd like to see documentation that addresses my
concerns. I don't mind if the feature is not portable, I'm just
nervous because I don't understand the issues.

    Brane

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jan 8 11:04:15 2004

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