On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Edward Ned Harvey <svn_at_nedharvey.com> 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.
I helped write the RPM's for RPMforge use (not primary author, merely
I tried working with Subverserion 1.6.x for RHEL 4, and the
dependencies get out of hand, including Python dependencies for the
build utilities, and fascinating issues with the 'svn help' command
for x86_64 architectures.
For RHEL 5, they're great. The one issue is that RPMforge does not
publish .i386 versions of packages in the x86_64 repository, and
RedHat does, so you can wind up with conflicts with the out of date
and entirely unnecessary i386 versions of components if you just use
"yum install subversion".
I simply flush the '.i386' versions of these components as entirely
unnecessary on an x86_64 host.
> 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.
Take a look at the SRPM's, if you want a higher level of confidence.
The .spec files are legible and the patches intelligible, to get it
to work with RedHat's structures and avoid dependency problems with
other tools that use Subversion. (
Received on 2010-11-15 23:30:02 CET