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

Re: [Subclipse-dev] subclipse rpm

From: Ben Konrath <bkonrath_at_redhat.com>
Date: 2006-04-28 20:01:38 CEST

Hi,

On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 01:59 +1000, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 23:06, Mark Phippard wrote:
> > We can do it if it is something you really use. In the past it has
> > seemed that most Linux distros were more concerned with having the
> > correct tags in the repository so that they could pull the source
> > themselves. We have been doing that now for quite a while. You would
> > rather download a zipped source file?
>
> In Debian, maintainers are encouraged to use a official upstream tar.gz
> instead of pulling sources from a version control system.

This is the same for Fedora.

> > I assume you would just do that
> > part manually and then launch your own build process? If that is the
> > case, what is special about your process that you could not just download
> > our build and package it?
>
> I can't speak for Fedora, but for Debian main all packages *must* build from
> source.
>
> There are multiple reasons for this requirement:
> Auto-building is the only feasible way of building 15,000 source
> packages on 11 different harware architectures. (Yes, this is relevant
> to subclipse, because current eclipse packages compile eclipse to a
> native binary with gcj).
>
> Binary-only packages (ie packaging upstream binaries) make it impossible
> for Debian to fix bugs. This makes security support impossible.
>
> The security team requires packages autobuild for security support.
>
> It is a requirement for end users to be able to modify and rebuild
> packages. (That's what the free software movement is all about).

Again, this is the same for Fedora. We also have to make sure that the
code we are shipping doesn't have any copyright infringements which is
something we can't grantee unless we build stuff ourselves.

> > Also, I have been seeing the problems "you guys" have been having via
> > Bloglines. The problem is most likely a mismatch between JavaHL Java
> > library and the JavaHL binary library. In 1.3 Subversion added a new
> > initialization method to the library. So if you have a 1.3 JAR and a 1.2
> > library or vice versa, it crashes. If you search our users@ archives for
> > "Havoc Pennington" you can find some activity that happened in this area
> > several months ago.
> >
> > Finally, I have seen suggestions about removing the svnjavahl.jar file.
> > You cannot do this, our code depends on it even if using the JavaSVN
> > adapter.
>
> In Debian the svnjavahl.jar should be removed from subclipse, subclipse
> should use the svn-javahl.jar from the subversion packages. (Only one
> package should ship a library, so (hopefully) only one package needs to be
> rebuilt to fix a security bug).

This is true for Fedora too. We will remove all the jars from the lib
directory and symlink to the jars installed on the system.

Thanks, Ben

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subclipse.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subclipse.tigris.org
Received on Fri Apr 28 20:01:50 2006

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