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

Re: Summer of Code: deadline approaches.

From: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev_at_farside.org.uk>
Date: 2007-03-09 02:20:29 CET

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 02:49:09PM -0600, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> >> Why not? When BDB 4.4 came out with auto-recovery feature, didn't
> >> Collabnet start producing binaries that used that?
> >>
> >
> >Yes, I'm sure they did. But that was because BDB is sufficiently
> >encapsulated that switching to it doesn't change the Subversion binary
> >API. APR isn't.
> Ah, so is the issue here that we're afraid of 'forcing' people to move
> from APR 0.9 to APR 1.X (and subsequently, httpd 2.0 to 2.2)?

Well, we have to be either be a little careful when we bump the contents
of the -deps tarball (i.e. point out to people that if they switch APR
major version, they'll also change binary compatibility for
Subversion).. or just stop shipping -deps entirely, I guess.

> If so, I guess I have little sympathy. APR 1.X has been out for more
> than 2 years and comes preinstalled on most systems now.

Some distros may be in the position of having shipped APR 0.9 in the
past, which locks them into APR 0.9 for Subversion unless they do something
clever with their packaging. (Or .so structure - doesn't Debian use
symbol versioning to solve this problem, allowing you to install
Subversion-built-on-APR-0.9 and Subversion-built-on-APR-1 side-by-side?)


  • application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Fri Mar 9 02:21:15 2007

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.