On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Peter Samuelson <peter_at_p12n.org> wrote:
> >
> > [Mark Phippard]
> > > We talked about this last year and decided we were going to update to
> > > the latest APR. I do not see any reason to change that decision.
> >
> > That is a fundamental policy change, then. In the past you have
> > committed to binary compatibility for the Subversion library API until
> > 2.0. Now you are breaking it, at least for those who use the deps
> > tarball - which to me represents an official endorsement.
>
> I am sorry but I think that is just a complete distortion. Is Debian
> or Red Hat or Ubuntu or any distribution going to build Subversion
> using our deps tarball? How is binary compatibility broken exactly?
>
> If you are a user building Subversion yourself you have complete
> control over the dependencies you use. BTW, you also probably could
> care less about binary compatibility. Why should we include old
> versions of things like APR and Neon when there are better versions
> available that fix bugs? The vast majority of users could care less
> about binary compat, and those that do are likely picking their own
> dependencies and unaffected by this. Please try to use a little
> perspective here.
Well, the underlying issue here is using mod_dav_svn with Apache 1.3, I think...
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-04-08 16:39:23 CEST