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

Changes to RPM area on web site.

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2004-11-29 22:40:53 CET

David, I don't know if you saw the question at the end of this post,
so I'm resending it with a more eye-catching subject line. The
original subject was:

   "Re: Is subversion safe to use?"


kfogel@collab.net writes:
> Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:
> > Okay, so maxb's analysis is that David Summers' svn 1.1 RPMS were
> > statically linking against BDB 4.0, but the user's previous 1.0.9 RPMs
> > (whereever they came from) were statically linking against BDB 4.2...
> >
> > This makes me ponder two different things:
> >
> > 1. Maybe package maintainers should clearly label (or even warn) which
> > version of of BDB they're using, since changing BDB versions can so
> > easily wreak havoc on unsuspecting users?
> That would probably help.
> > 2. a separate question -- and this is nothing against David or any
> > other packager -- I wonder if our downloads page shouldn't make it
> > really, really clear that
> >
> > A. the Subversion project only "officially" tests and releases
> > sourceballs
> > B. every link we provide is to volunteer-produced packages.
> >
> > This is on my mind lately, because whenever someone has a problem with
> > a binary package (for any OS) the first thing they say is, "but I'm
> > using the official package from the Subversion site!" There's this
> > common misunderstanding that keeps coming up. A lot of users think
> > that if they follow and install those links, then nothing can possibly
> > go wrong because they've all been thoroughly tested and blessed. We
> > need to make it clear that we're providing those links merely as a
> > convenience, don't you think?
> At first, I thought this sounded like a good idea. But the more I
> thought about it, the less comfortable I became.
> The Subversion project as a whole has been benefiting from David's and
> other packager's work. Why should we suddenly pretend we're strangers
> when the occasional problem crops up?
> "What, RPMs? Never heard of 'em. Some sort of packaging system,
> is it? Well, we've got nothing to do with it..."
> I'm being facetious, of course :-), but only partly.
> With or without the proposed disclaimer, we're not going to behave any
> differently. When people come into our lists and IRC channels with a
> problem, we're going to try and help them. If we loudly proclaim that
> these packages aren't "blessed", what will that really mean? What
> will it gain anyone? People will still download them, still use them,
> and when they have problems, they'll still come to the same place.
> So let's just try to do a better job of labeling the packages and
> their potential incompatibilities, and when there are problems, we
> take our lumps and try to solve them.
> If some package maintainer were to produce consistently unreliable or
> gratuitously incompatible packages, then we should stop linking to
> those packages. But so far, that hasn't happened. It certainly
> didn't happen in this case; all we really have here is a labeling
> problem, albeit one that bites pretty hard :-).
> David, would you like to take care of committing the appropriate
> language to the web pages? You know best what needs to be said
> regarding upgrades & incompatibilities.
> -Karl
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 29 22:45:08 2004

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.