On May 31, 2005, at 4:01 PM, OpenMacNews wrote:
> hi stephen,
>> I'm trying to look at this now but one thing popped out at me
>> which I hope
>> someone else can comment on. In the above "with apache"
>> configuration, you
>> are passing "--with-apr=..." to point at Apache's version of apr.
>> I thought
>> I had heard that APR-1.0 was not binary-compatible with the 0.9.6
>> included in the subversion tarball. True or not?
>> Since you said the dav module and the client works fine, it seems
>> that APR
>> 1.0 is fine so I'd like to know if it is recommended to use
>> APR-1.0 from
>> apache2 if one is going to be using the dav module. ???
> sorry, i'm not exactly clear as to what you're asking.
I believe the issue is that the subversion code cannot depend on
apr-1.0 b/c the end result might not be backwards compatible when
talking to/dealing with a subversion server or client that was
compiled against apr-0.9.6. That's the best info I could find on the
If you are building your own server/client pieces and they all use
apr-1.0 (or higher) then I imagine you are set. Hopefully someone
else will chime in with a more authoritative answer.
> i use apache 2.1.5-dev, which _requires_ apr-1+ (apache 2.0.x
> requires apr-0.9.x).
Against 2.0.54 with almost all the same configure settings as you (I
don't have swig or bdb installed), make check still fails with one
error for the translate-test.
Where does one get apache 2.1.5-dev? I looked at the snapshots page
and other bits of the apache httpd website but didn't see anything
obvious. Since that appears to be the only (relevant) difference
between my build and yours, you might want to try leaving out the "--
with-apr[-util]" lines in your configure script and seeing what you get.
Admittedly, that doesn't seem like it will solve the problem since it
seems more like it has to do with the tests setting the
DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH incorrectly. From your log, it looks like you've
already installed 1.2 in /usr/local/subversion120. What happens if
you remove that directory before configuring, making, and make checking?
> as i'm 'pointing to', ad using, my external apr v1+, what exactly
> are you concerned is not 'binary compatible'? since i'm not
> touching the tarball's apr at all, why is this a concern?
Probably not an issue, as noted above.
Received on Wed Jun 1 09:02:55 2005