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

Re: Wrong db version for src rpm rebuild

From: Kenneth Porter <shiva_at_sewingwitch.com>
Date: 2005-01-06 22:59:05 CET

--On Thursday, January 06, 2005 3:08 PM -0500 "Martin J. Stumpf"
<mjs@jhu.edu> wrote:

> Thanks but I am more confused now. I don't REALLY want to build the
> packages. I am running FC2 not FC3. I didn't think that I could get rpms
> from the FC3 updates because of other possible links that I don't have.

That's why I suggested rebuilding from the source RPM. You shouldn't need
any FC3 stuff if you use the source RPM except for the newer swig, and you
should build that from the source RPM as well.

> I just want to upgrade to 1.1.1 or 1.1.2 from rpms or even a build from
> a tarball. I have many other clients that are FC2 so that is why I was
> trying to rebuild a binary rpm.

Same here. As a rule, RPM's for later Red Hat versions can be used if you
build from the source RPM.

Let me know what happens when you build from the source RPM.

> After 6 hours of messing with this (I
> had already tried editing the spec file and that didn't work because I
> need all the dependencies available to build a new rpm). The tigris
> website downloads section doesn't even mention FC2 under Redhat it just
> takes you to the summer site which has only whitebox. I don't even know
> what whitebox is but it was the only place I could find src rpms.

whitebox probably means "any" distro, the way a whitebox PC is a box with
no brand name built from generic parts.

> I tried to rpm -Uv the subversion rpm you pointed me to and I get the
> following:
>
> error: Failed dependencies:
> liblber-2.2.so.7()(64bit) is needed by subversion-1.1.1-1.1
> libldap-2.2.so.7()(64bit) is needed by subversion-1.1.1-1.1
> libswigpy.so.0()(64bit) is needed by subversion-1.1.1-1.1
> subversion = 1.0.9-1 is needed by (installed)
> subversion-perl-1.0.9-1
> subversion = 1.0.9-1 is needed by (installed) mod_dav_svn-1.0.9-1
>
> So, do I go get those lib's from FC3? They don't exist on my complete
> install of FC2.

That would be expected if you used a FC3 binary RPM, as it was originally
built and linked against FC3 packages. In fact, the "64bit" looks like you
pulled it from the x86_64 binary packages, which is probably not what you
want.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jan 6 23:01:58 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.