>
> > FWIW, I think it's fine to rename it - as the downstream packagers
> > will figure it out (provided it makes an appearance in CHANGES). I'm
> > just tired of constantly being befuddled whenever this silly argument
> > rears its ugly head. (I don't care if this doesn't make it into 1.5.)
>
> Well, ok, you've already renamed it, so let's move on.
I guess you're right although these kinds of changes would preferably
not be made (from a packager perspective, but not asking things to
stay still because of that)
> You're saying that someone might run a build of Subversion with BDB, and
> then transplant the resulting libsvn_fs_base into an installation
> compiled without BDB? Given that our build system makes no allowance
> whatsoever for building individual fs|ra modules apart from the main
> build, I don't think this is a scenario we should be concerned with in
> the slightest, whereas the problem epg described in the initial mail in
> this thread is a real one.
>
From a packager's perspective I would have to say that we might
consider this. Especially in gentoo's case where a lot of complexity
might be removed by individually building for example the bdb
filesystem module. From a packager perspective it would be acceptable
to do some custom stuff to build only the bdb module and do an
individual install. Of course, it is not very productive to actually
patch the distribution as that will have to be maintained, but we do
so if needed.
Paul
--
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv_at_gentoo.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-02-20 11:09:29 CET