Re: SVN client vs CVS client
On Jan 2, 2008 11:54 AM, <kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com> wrote:
> Les Mikesell <lesmikesell_at_gmail.com> wrote on 01/02/2008 10:44:54 AM:
> > Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> > >>
> > >> It is the same OS - one binary file achieves everything. Now in SVN
> > >> installation path seems hardwired into the program such that I cannot
> > >> drop and expect a binary to run as a client. All it needs to do is
> > >> connect to SVN with the user name and password and check out code.
> > >
> > > Which clearly explains there are basic OS understanding issues going
> > > on here. It's not Subversion which requires this behaviour.
> > > Subversion, in contrast to CVS is -however - built up from a number of
> > > libraries. This is a concious design decision to allow easier creation
> > > of other Subversion clients than the standard command line interface.
> > > Something that is non-trivial with CVS.
> > It still would normally be possible to build a static-linked binary if
> > you wanted one, though. But I think I recall seeing something about
> > this being a problem on Solaris because some of the gcc libs aren't
> > built for static linkage. Regardless, you should be able to put the
> > needed libs somewhere where you have write permission and set
> > LD_LIBRARY_PATH appropriately to find them.
> Static binaries for Solaris are not impossible to build, just need some
> non standard configuration changes.
> Some pre-built ones are available at:
> NOTE: I didn't create these, just found them awhile ago...
> Kevin R.
Yes - that is what I have been looking for - let me see how well it works.
Thanks so much. I think this is the striking parallel to the cvs client I
was mentioning about.
Received on 2008-01-04 07:16:37 CET
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users