> Let me ask you this: if I leave my working binary RPM of
> subversion-1.1.3 alone, get the tarball, untar it, and then follow the
> build instructions for javahl and install that (in other words, a binary
> RPM for subversion itself and a statically linked javaHL) is that a
> workable configuration?
It will not be statically linked unless you do something special to make it
so. If you do, let us know. If we could provide a static JavaHL for Linux
we would do so in a heartbeat.
> If not, if you're asking me to reinstall subversion built from source
> without using RPMs, I won't do that. I spent the better part of last
> weekend dealing with rpm hell just to install subversion. Are you now
> asking me to forget all that?
I am not asking you to do anything.
> In other words, are you asking me to
> forget the instructions on the Subversion web site and do it this
> special way just to have javaHL and subeclipse? If so, something is
> wrong with this picture.
The only instructions Subversion provides is how to build from source.
They do not discuss RPM's or any packaging mechanism. Perhaps you read
instructions from the person that provided your RPM's. If you want to do
it via RPM you are going to have to press your distributor. I found this
message which may or may not be of help.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2005-January/msg00512.html
> Look, I don't mind installing a statically linked application (Mozilla
> Firefox works flawlessly on my system that way without requiring me to
> change my system. So does straight Eclipse.) Nor do I mind installing
> RPMs that play nicely with the rest of my system. But subversion seems
> to want to take over my whole system - and a good portion of my life -
> and that's asking too much.
You are preaching to the choir. I am not a Linux user, this seems to be a
problem in the Linux world in that ultimately if the distributor does not
provide the packages you need, it gets very messy to install software.
> I hope someone on the team is devoting some energy to making this easier
> to do.
Certainly not on the Subclipse team. We complain now and then to the
Subversion devs but there is little we can do. They cannot make RedHat
provide specific packages and frankly I suspect that JavaHL doesn't get
distributed because of the whole Java and open source issue. Just look at
the hoops you have to go through to install Java itself as a Debian package
as an example.
We are mostly Java programmers here, and at least in my case I work mostly
on Windows and a little on OS X. We consume the JavaHL and Subversion
libraries, we do not produce them. We certainly wish there was an easy way
for us to distribute a binary for Linux, but there just isn't. Hopefully
the work that is being put into JavaSVN will yield some fruit, but I
personally think JavaHL will always be the best, and safest option.
I would suggest you raise the issue again on Monday on the Subversion
lists. There are likely people that can help you build things the way you
want on RedHat. There are a lot of options you can pass to ./configure to
control what it does and what dependencies it uses.
Mark
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Received on Mon Feb 7 14:53:18 2005