On 11/12/12 16:11, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Philip Martin]
>> I assume WANdisco's package is intended to replace the libraries in the
>> standard Debian or Ubuntu libsvn1 package, in which case you need to use
>> the same patch. If you ship -1.so.0 libraries then applications linked
>> to the -1.so.1 libraries will fail to start.
>
> Well, they'll fail to start _if_ your package is actually named
> 'libsvn1' and thus replaces the system libsvn1. Calling a package
> 'libsvn1' implies that you intend to ship libsvn_*-1.so.1. And
> certainly the obvious course is to use my ABI patch, but if you'd
> rather stay truer to upstream Subversion, just name your library
> package something else (we called it libsvn0 before the patch) and the
> two packages can happily coexist on a system. Apps compiled for the
> one will use the one, apps compiled for the other will use the other.
>
Which patch are you referring in paticular? I've tried a lot of patches
in some debian packages and they don't really work i've got all kinds of
errors sometimes only on 64bit not being able to find some svn change
path function isn't being compiled, and sometimes the patches dont
apply. And is it really that big a deal? Chaning it from 0 to 1. Abi
change etc, its still only a name of a library.
I have debian packages for and they work for us upgrading from the
default subversion system:
debian 5 32/64
debain 6 32/64
ubuntu 1004 32/64
ubuntu 1204 32/64
And i needed to repackages serf on ubuntu 1204 since it generates the
broken dependency of libserf-private which doesn't exist.
Maybe if i could see the single patch that refers to this i can apply it
or i can push to make a libsvn0 might be a good idea but that might
break git-svn or something since it depends libsvn1 maybe not since they
both can exist and libsvn1 will always be default systems libsvn.
On rhel 5/6 the libaries are left as is 0. Why isn't it a problem there.
Received on 2012-12-12 11:44:09 CET