On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 01:48:46AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> * http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2006-03/0583.shtml
> Joe Orton agrees that delaying this decision hurts users. He _seems_
> to be suggesting that apache 2.2 not be supported at all until
> Subversion 2.0, but I hate to put words in someone's mouth - Joe, can
> you clarify what position you think Subversion should take on this?
Sorry, that message was rather obtuse :) My argument was supposed to be:
current Subversion releases already implicitly and explicitly support
APR 1.x (and hence httpd 2.2), therefore changing the SVN library
sonames based on use of APR 1.x is an unreasonable break of backwards
compatibility.
There seemed to be a presumption that the premise of that argument was
not true, which is what I was trying to refute in my message by pointing
out that the SVN build system supports use of APR 1.x, and that support
for APR 1.x was advertised in the 1.1.2 CHANGES entry.
To be clear, I think this would have been a good idea had it been done
either before the Subversion 1.x release or before the APR 1.0 release,
and it would be a good idea to do it for Subversion 2.x, but it would be
unreasonable to do it in mid-1.x.
I think it would certainly be unreasonable for the SVN project to refuse
to support APR 1.x/httpd 2.2 (in some abstract way) merely because SVN
cannot be packaged to allow backwards-compat across APR major versions,
which is something I'd presume the vast majority of users don't care
about (witness, lack of anybody caring about it for the 18 months APR
1.x has been available). Debian can make that choice, of course; or
just use different SVN sonames to upstream.
Regards,
joe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Mar 31 11:51:35 2006