You wrote 31 января 2008 г., 0:11:38:
>> It is possible to build any bindings with INSTALLED subversion
>> libraries, without rebuilding them from source tree?
> No. You might be able to hack the makefile to do this - I've never had
> to find out.
I understand, that I can hack (or write my own) makefiles :)
>> This feature, to build ONLY bindings with pre-installed subversion
>> libraries and headers is VERY useful for package systems: it allows to
>> easily create `main' subversion package and binding packages (vvery
>> small and compact), which depends on `main' one. Now we (FreeBSD in my
>> case) need to create four full-size packages with different options.
>> It is ugly solution :(
> What we do in Debian, and I think most free software integrators do the
> same, is to have a single "source package" that, when built, produces
> multiple "binary packages". So in Debian we generate, from a single
> source and a single build process: 'subversion', 'subversion-tools',
> 'libsvn1', 'libsvn-dev', 'libsvn-doc', 'libapache2-svn', 'libsvn-perl',
> 'libsvn-java', and much much more.
There is difference: many, many people build software on target
machine in FreeBSD world (if you know Gentoo system, you understand
what I mean). So, now subversion can be build from `devel/subversion'
with any options (bindings are turned off by default),
`devel/subversion-perl' with "default + perl" options, etc. It is not
very useful. You must have only one port (package) installed in such
scheme. It is BIG limitation: if you want many bindings, you should
build it from main port and turn bindings ON (because you could not
install subversion-perl and subversion-python in same time). If you
have simple subversion installed, and AFTER that you want to install
something, what need perl bindings, you should delete subversion and
install subversion-perl, etc. Very, very ugly :(
FreeBSD doesn't have such conception as `many binary packages from
one port (source package)', it is limitation of port system, but we
have to live with it :(
> The single source package makes sense because subversion.tigris.org
> ships a single tarball. I think if you want to split up the build
> process, you probably want to split it all the way up, including
> multiple source tarballs.
No. Why? People, who use binary packages, doesn't bother about source
tarbaal, and people, who use ports (build packages itself) will
download source tarball only once even if it will be used in building
of multiple ports. Only one overhead is unpacking.
// Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov <lev_at_serebryakov.spb.ru>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-01-30 22:26:53 CET