Mark Phippard wrote:
>Branko Čibej <email@example.com> wrote on 07/01/2004 07:59:35 PM:
>>Ben Reser wrote:
>>>Greg and I had a long discussion about this on IRC yesterday (or maybe
>>>it was the day before that). I disagree with his argument that we have
>>>to go to 2.0 just because of this.
>>It's a thorny issue, but I agree with Ben here. httpd-2.0.x/apr-0.9.x
>>will be around for quite a while, living in parallel with
>>httpd-2.2.x/apr-1.x. We can probably remain source compatible with both.
>> <>The same version of SVN *might* support DAV autoversioning better if
>> it's compiled against httpd-2.2.x, but as Ben points out, our "feature"
>> set already depends on which BDB we're linking with, and this would be
>> the same. The svnserve protocol, as a counterexample, doesn't care a
>> bit about the size of apr_off_t.
>> I'd be very sad if we pushed for a 2.0 release _without_ improving the
>> FS schema and (yeaargh!) the WC design.
>I also tend to agree with Ben's sentiments. I come from a Windows world,
>well actually OS/400, so I do not know if this makes sense in the Unix
>world. But ... would it make any sense at all to say that the 1.x
>"binaries" would be produced against APR 0.9 but the source would be
>compatible with 1.0? That way a user could know that they are making a
>choice to potentially break compatability and build against 1.0/2.2 on
Since the Subversion project doesn't "officially" produce binaries, I
don't think there's any need to make this sorr of promise. Which
dependencies get used in the build is really up to the package
maintainer, and will generally depend on which version of Apache is
normally part of a particular distribution.
>Also, while my understanding of this issue is relatively small, I recall
>reading in previous posts that the issue was that the APR structs or some
>other thing were directly exposed in the SVN ABI. Would it make sense to
>address this in 2.0? So that 2.0 could be built against APR 0.9 or 1.0
>and present the same ABI/API? It seems like it would make sense, if this
>is even possible, to try to kill this issue for the future ASAP.
I think we expose apr_off_t in the some function signatures. I agree we
should fix that in a 2.0 release.
>Finally, not being a C guru in any sense I do not know the answer to this,
>but couldn't Subversion be statically linked to APR 0.9 and still run with
Heh. Saying "Subversion" here is a bit misleading. The thing that works
with apache is mod_dav_svn, but that links with several of the
libraries. Certainly the client doesn't have to use the same APR version
as the server (except for file:// access)
> I am sure you have all thought of all of these things, so I
>apologize if this is all just "noise".
It's always good to spell these things out.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Fri Jul 2 19:48:33 2004