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

Re: Problem integration Subversion with Apache

From: Kris Deugau <kdeugau_at_vianet.ca>
Date: 2006-06-30 17:56:45 CEST

Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> While I love DAG to pieces, it's fairly out of date on Subversion: it's
> at 1.2.1, and the latest is 1.3.2. The differences are pretty
> significant, such as the improvements in file locking.

*nod* Yes, his packages *are* "out of date". But they're perfectly
functional, and as I noted, unless you need the absolute latest
Subversion they are (were) lower-impact in terms of system library
requirements and stock package replacements. I see this has been fixed;
  my major objection is no longer valid. :)

> What's wrong with David Summer's RPM's and SRPM's? He publishes good
> ones, with copies of other packages you may need to update. And if you
> publish the bugs you see here, maybe we can help with them!

When I first went looking for Subversion rpm packages, his were the only
ones available... but they replaced the stock Apache (IIRC this was for
APR version reasons) and required Yet Another BDB (version). Among
other things. :( Checking now I see that this has changed (AKA "fixed"
<g>), but I haven't had much reason to either switch package sources or
bother upgrading - I just don't need the "latest and greatest".

A brief attempt to rebuild the SRPM at the time saw similar issues; it
Just Didn't Work and I didn't feel like making the effort to fix it.

Given that I really didn't want to replace Apache (which would have
meant rebuilding any of the stock Apache modules in use - eg, PHP), I
just waited a bit for my own personal systems (all White Box Linux;
RHEL clone), and I shortly found Dag had published packages - which did
NOT need to replace the stock Apache, and did NOT need to replace or add
a big stack of "extra" deps (eg, Yet Another Copy of BDB). Along the
way a system BDB security update/upgrade caused minor havoc, so I
switched my own repositories to FSFS.

My main @work environment was Debian Woody, so backports.org filled my
needs there. (More recently, Debian Sarge has Subversion 1.1.4, which
meets our current (server-side) needs - although I may pick up the
backports.org release again.) I switched those repositories to FSFS
along about the same time as my own; mainly for consistency.

Along a different line (the "I'm a lazy SOB" objection <g>), I don't see
any of the support files necessary for snagging David's packages via yum
(or apt-rpm, or any other similar tool). Creating all the bits yum
needs is fairly trivial; I don't recall the details but it's listed in
the man page. apt-rpm is another story... you don't want to go there
unless you're Very Brave. O_o <g>

The OP's problems appear to have been caused by something similar to my
own original objection to David's packages when I first found them -
namely, replacing a semi-core system library or app that causes
cascading dependency issues across a fair chunk of the rest of the
system, and flat-out problems installing other third-party packages or
software that assume (quite rightfully) that core system libraries on
$distro are the stock versions.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jun 30 17:58:57 2006

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.