Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, 15 Sep 2009 at 21:14 +0100:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 03:00:36PM -0500, Paul Hammant wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, one last question if I may:
> > >
> > > Are you sure that the svn binary you've built is using the correct
> > > libsvn_* libraries? If it happens to load the old ones, which can
> > > happen on Linux where shared lib dependencies are resolved at runtime,
> > > depending on your configuration, then it could be calling into a wrong
> > > shared library which does not have the fix applied.
> > >
> > No, I'm not sure that's the case. I'm a Java guy mostly, and an
> > infrequent visitor to configure/make/gcc. Doing a "svn --version" was
> > yielding plausible version numbers [1.6.6 (dev), 1.6.5(38xxx) and
> > alike ]. How could I tell that transitive deps were right or wrong ?
> > We're Fedora core 10, and yum installed the non-svn deps like
> > libtool. It is true that Svn was already in the path at build time,
> > but nothing the flew past in configure or make looked to be pointing
> > to prior items.
> > We still have the 1.6.5+2patch, and the 1.6.x-r38000 checkouts and can
> > build again. How can we be 100% sure that we're not dragging in
> > inappropriate deps ?
> You can use ldd to see which libraries your svn binary is using.
> It should only use libsvn_* libraries from the --prefix you specified
> to the configure script when building Subversion.
> If it is using any libraries e.g from /usr/lib and you did not pass
> --prefix=/usr/lib, you likely have this problem. Since all your libraries
> are 1.6.x versions, Subversion will run just fine; the ABI does not change
> at all within a single release line. But your svn 1.6.6 will behave like
> e.g. 1.6.5 in some places.
Wouldn't svn_ver_check_list() complain if a 1.6.x_at_HEAD binary (which
calls itself 1.6.6-dev) found a 1.6.5 (release) library at runtime?
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-09-16 00:04:21 CEST