Mark Phippard wrote:
>>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.
>
I misspoke here. I didn't mean "statically linked". What I meant to
ask was "is a binary RPM-based subversion installation compatible with a
source-built javaHL". Or should both be compiled from the same code
base? You may not know the answer to this, but maybe someone else can
say whether they've tried this setup.
>
snip
>
> The only instructions Subversion provides is how to build from source.
> They do not discuss RPM's or any packaging mechanism.
Not true. See http://subversion.tigris.org/project_packages.html and
follow the link under Red Hat Linux - down to here:
http://summersoft.fay.ar.us/pub/subversion/latest/redhat-9.0/src/
This is where I got all the RPMs - source and binary - from.
> 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.
Sounds like you need a Linux expert on your team. If I were one, I'd
volunteer, but, alas, I'm just a user of Linux.
>
> 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.
Can you talk a little more about this? Or point to somewhere where this
issue is debated? I don't know the points and counterpoints. So far I
have refrained from trying JavaSVN, but I may decide differently if I
don't get it going soon. I'm guessing the CVS support in Eclipse for
Linux uses an all-java approach rather than a JNI one, right? Of
course, I suppose the Subversion/Subeclipse team lacks the resources
that IBM was able to throw at Eclipse and CVS.
>
> 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.
Well, I have raised it today on the subversion list. I will have to
raise it again if no one picks it up.
>
> Mark
>
Received on Mon Feb 7 15:34:22 2005