On 11/15/2010 10:27 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikesell_at_gmail.com]
>> On 11/15/2010 9:17 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>>>>> On RHEL4 / RHEL5, I find it ridiculously easy to build svn from
>>>>> Here is my build script:
>> Has someone had specific problems with the rpmforge rpms? I've been using
>> them on centos5 without any trouble,
> Neither rpmforge, nor epel has subversion>= 1.5 for rhel4.
Umm, OK - we're way off topic now but I'd ask the same question about
running rhel/centos4.x as I would about running subversion 1.4.x...
> I used collabnet, when 1.5.0 first came out and building from source was
> extremely difficult ... but the collabnet rpm's had lots of "surprises" like
> the silent creation of csvn user which conflicts with our company's UID
> numbering scheme. Config files& log files kept in unusual locations. And
> there was some kind of problem with svnsync that I don't remember now, and
> stuff like that. So ... in later versions of 1.5.x, when it became easy to
> build from source, I found that building from source was the clear best
> solution for the locations where I support it. Reliable (behaves the same
> on all machines). No surprises.
> And the trend continues with 1.6. Still easy to build, but no rpm's
> available that I trust more than what I build from source.
There's nothing wrong with doing your own compile, but there are good
reasons to use a distribution's package management tools as much as
possible. I'd at least try to take the spec file from a working rpm or
write your own from scratch if you think you can do it better. If you
don't, you are much more likely to set up a scenario where incompatible
versions co-exist on the same machine in different locations or your
mod_dav_svn don't match the installed httpd.
Received on 2010-11-15 17:57:00 CET