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

Re: RFC: removing native libs

From: Mark Phippard <MarkP_at_softlanding.com>
Date: 2004-08-25 22:06:57 CEST

McClain Looney <mlooney@gmail.com> wrote on 08/25/2004 03:58:10 PM:

> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:43:22 -0400, Mark Phippard
<markp@softlanding.com> wrote:
> > I think you missed my point slightly. I do not think javahl needs to
> > move. My point is that there is no reason that Subclipse cannot make
its
> > own builds with newer features but using the rest of the released
> > Subversion code base. since javahl is a self-contained entity, and
> > Subclipse in theory distributes it, there shouldn't be issues. (Famous
> > last words). javahl is just not as mature as Subversion, it doesn't
make
> > sense for it to be on the same freeze/release schedule. I can
understand
> > if Subversion devs want to freeze what is going into their tarballs,
but
> > why should that stop Subclipse from making its own builds?
>
> That's exactly the problem. subclipse _does_ make its own builds,
> builds which may not have been built with (or without as you note
> above) the same dependencies as the svn installation on the end-users
> machine (this is less of an issue with win32, since that library is
> statically linked). it is this mis-match which is the problem.
>
> javahl is in no way a self contained entity (it could be considered
> one on windows, sort of, for the reason mentioned above). On its own,
> javahl does nothing. it just provides convenient hooks into an svn
> installation's libraries.

So on Linux and Mac, javahl requires Subversion libraries to be installed,
in addition to the ones required by Subversion like BDB? So this
essentially means you probably need to have the command line client
installed already? Also, in the case of the Mac, you couldn't use one of
the popular static command line builds because then javahl would not have
any libraries to load?

I guess I come back to my opening statement, this is a complicated issue
and it is hard to determine the ramifications. I think that by not
shipping the libraries, you are probably just trading one set of problems
for a new set which are currently unknown. Perhaps we should try to keep
the system as is and instead try to recruit some voluteers to write good
instructions for each of the three major platforms that discuss how to get
a good setup and what the issues are?

Mark
 

_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Received on Thu Aug 26 06:06:57 2004

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