Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> David.Gale@Hypertherm.com wrote:
>> I'd compiled a 1.2.1 client on our Solaris 8 and 9 systems, but ran
>> into problems compiling the 1.3.0 client, so I ended up using
>
> What problems? I built it OK on Solaris 10.
> I might have disabled some parts (don't recall now)
> as we only use the svn:// access method.
I forget, exactly; I believe it was an issue of not being able to find
required libraries, or some such. (This was on the Solaris 8 box, by
the way.) If I'd had more time to devote to it, I probably could've
tracked down what I needed to, but I had other projects to deal with.
>> sunfreeware.com's version as well. The annoying thing is that that
>> version is compiled to be a server with all options, and thus
>> requires SSL and BDB to be installed, which we don't need on our
>> client systems. (Actually, we don't need them on the server, either,
>> as we're using svnserve and FSFS, but that's not a Solaris box.)
>
> You might find the http://blastwave.org packaging easier to handle
> than using sunfreeware.com. The http://blastwave.org subversion
> package will probably still be built with everything enabled, but it
> will
> also download and install the the prerequisits automatically for you.
> You need to start by downloading pkg-get from that site, which then
> drives the rest of the process. Blastwave packages are all installed
> into /opt/csw which is a path Sun have reserved for community
> software. I find Blastwave packages are usually better built and more
> up-to-date than the sunfreeware.com packages, and the
> auto-installation of all dependances is a really big plus, although I
> haven't actually tried their subversion package as I built my own.
I don't have a problem with downloading and installing prerequisite
packages--that's easy. The issue is that we like to have fairly clean
systems, so installing extraneous packages that aren't truly needed is
not something we want to do. There's absolutely no reason our client
systems should have BDB installed on them, but unless we come up with
the time to roll our own svn, it looks like we have to.
Incidentally, this brings up a question I've often wondered: why doesn't
subversion have a "client-only" install? Surely there's no need for the
majority of svn installations to include svnadmin and svnserve, right?
What I'd love to see is a "--client-only" option to configure, which
disables all optional items (unless they're explicitly turned on), and
which only creates the svn tool. Thus:
./configure # Creates all tools, with all available extras as current.
./configure --client-only # Creates just svn, no extras.
./configure --client-only -with-ssl # Creates just svn with ssl
support.
And so on. Any thoughts on this?
-David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Apr 28 21:27:38 2006