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

Re: Building Subversion 1.[12] on OS X 10.4 fails

From: Stephen Davis <subversion_at_soundgeek.org>
Date: 2005-05-18 00:24:46 CEST

On May 17, 2005, at 2:53 PM, K. Richard Pixley wrote:

> FTR, one available binary package doesn't work. A second requires
> a distribution system (fink) which doesn't work, so I can't even
> try it.

The crux of the problem is neon 0.24.7 which is bundled with
subversion <= 1.2. Out of the box, neon is broken on OS X b/c it
does not build the shared library and the rest of the subversion
build process expects to find it (on 10.3, this somehow gets
overlooked but on 10.4 it is not). The next version of neon does not
have this problem (and it is my understanding that kfogel has began
the update to the latest version on trunk but I could be wrong).

The configure script for neon 0.24.7 does not build shared but
something gets broken such that subversion tries to find the shared
library that didn't get built. That is the failure.

Since this was already fixed in a later version of neon, it is not
clear to me who to report this to.

> I can't build 1.1.4 from source on tiger out of the box, default
> configs.
> I'm waiting for 1.2 to configure now.

CC=gcc-3.3 GXX=yes ./configure

should work for 1.2-rc4 on 10.4 (I'm building now but my machine is
slow). Note that Tiger ships with gcc 4.0 as the default compiler
and this version appears to be, shall we say, less than perfect.
Having said that, only one of the subversion self-tests fails (I
forget which one) so it may not be that bad but it is a question
mark, to be sure.

> Autoconf was never a good solution. It was a so-so solution whose
> shortcomings were covered by enthusiastic maintainers. It is
> grossly showing it's cracks now, even for simple and mature things
> like the older gnu packages. The GNU standard "configure"
> interface was basically a fine idea, (skipping the --host --target
> problems rms never seemed to understand), but autoconf always has
> been and continues to be a huge overhead by comparison to the
> alternatives. For tested software, it's just flat out wrong.

Out of curiousity, what better alternatives exist? I've seen
makefiles that "just work" (which is impressive) but I'm not familiar
with any other autoconf-esque mechanisms.

BTW, subversion maintainers, why is there no "make uninstall"
option? Cleaning out my /usr/local heirarchy of all things
subversion to test fresh builds of new releases or different
configure options is irritating.

Received on Wed May 18 00:26:50 2005

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.