Offer Kaye wrote:
> On 5/14/07, david x callaway wrote:
>> that library is part of the krb5-libs package. if svn is not running
>> correctly on the machine it is something the administrator needs to fix.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to answer David.
> Maybe I wasn't clear enough. When I said "Please remember that I'm
> just a user, I don't have an easy way to supply all the required
> dependencies", I meant, among other things, that I can't simply go up
> to an admin and ask for help. I'm on my own here.
you can theoretically compile the other libraries, put them somewhere,
and add that place to your LD_LIBRARY_PATH, but if the list is long this
may take a lot of work. also it leaves you vulnerable to an OS update,
after which your binaries may not work with the system libs, so you
might consider compiling *everything* yourself; still bribing the admin
could be a lot easier.
>
>> the only way for the machine to get into the state you describe is for
>> someone to either a) install subversion without satisfying its
>> dependencies, or b) copy an already built binary without copying its
>> dependencies. svn and its dependencies could have been installed by
>> yum install subversion
>> (after installing yum).
>>
>> if you "installed" svn by copying a 32bit binary onto a 64bit machine it
>> is likely that b) is the problem.
>>
>
> I didn't "copy" svn, I specifically said I compiled it (I'll add now,
> from source, if that wasn't clear) on a 32bit machine, then tried to
> run it *through the network* on a 64bit machine.
I don't understand what "through the network" means. you compiled it on
a 32bit machine, and then...?
>
>> you can theoretically compile svn static, which would end the shared lib
>> dependencies, but from reading the list I doubt you want to go there,
>
> How can I compile svn static? Is this a flag I pass to the configure
> script?
> Why would I not want to do this? Can you elaborate?
in principle, no problem, however there was a thread a while back that
made it seem unattractive because of the procedure to do it.
>
>> and I doubt you want to run a 32bit binary on a 64bit machine in any
>> case (although theoretically you can).
>
> Why not? Oh and it's not "theoretically", X86_64 processors can fully
> support 32bit programs without recompile, more details here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_64
32bit binaries will run just fine on either x86_64 or IPF architectures,
but only *if* all the required 32bit libraries are present (the loader
will not mix 32 and 64 bit shared libs). from the error message you are
getting it is apparent that a library is missing regardless of where it
is running or what architecture.
>
> Regards,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon May 14 12:45:12 2007