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

Re: svn commit: r35241 - in trunk: . build/ac-macros subversion/include/private subversion/libsvn_subr

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:30:49 +0000

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 03:14:10PM -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 18:21, Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz_at_apache.org> wrote:
> >> ...
> >> In order to use a static version, we have to rename all symbols to
> >> avoid conflicts as APR-util can also bring in sqlite. Therefore, we
> >
> > Nope... note the use of SQLITE_API defined as "static". All of the
> > sqlite functions are static to libsvn_subr/sqlite.c. No naming
> > contention at all!
> >
> >> have now introduced symbol/version collisions that can cause failures
> >> at run-time and indeterminate behavior.
> >>
> >> FWIW, I was already working on a patch to do the external config when
> >> ./sqlite exists - as no one added ./sqlite bundled-support to
> >> configure. IMO, that's a far more elegant solution... -- justin
> >
> > This was a first step to get svn working in the presence of an old
> > system sqlite. Obviously, it didn't work all that well for some
> > definition of "everybody".
> >
> > I'd prefer to see an amalgamation build over a ./sqlite build. Tho I
> > guess with the latter, it can be independently rev'd independent of
> > what amalgamation we include into our build.
> >
> > I'm curious about the ENOTSUP error though. I thought sqlite was very portable.
> >
> > Anyways... looks like a blend of restoring-autoconf and the amalg
> > build should do the trick. Just needs some volunteers...
>
> Here's what I'd like to see:
> * keep amalgamation ability, but ship the actual amalgamation file in -deps and
> install it in the correct place during configure
> * resurrect the link-to-system-library ability, have an officially recommended
> minimum version (preferably something like 3.5.0 for the time being)
>
> I can take a look over the next couple of days, but it may be slow going as I
> reteach myself m4. Justin, if you think it'd be helpful, would you might
> posting your patch-in-progress?

Can we back out the current patch in the mean time?

I'd rather not have changes in my WC (backed out r35241) that are
unrelated to what I'm doing (issue #3354).

Stefan
Received on 2009-01-14 22:31:26 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.