On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:40:34AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> Rechecking my test environment, 1.6.16 builds well enough on RHEL
>> 5/CentOS 5 with just the version change. RHEL 6 is a *disaster*,
>> partly due swig integration. (RHEL 6 finally has a recent enough swig
>> and sqlite not to need the separate tarballs, but that code needs
>> graceful management.)
>>
>> The internal ".spec" structure in
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/packages/rpm/ is also
>> *very* dangerous. It replaces the user's own .rpmmacros, without
>> warning and without making a backup. This is hideous behavior. I'll
>> send along some patches for that ASAP.
>
> I agree that's hideous.
> Patches to the packages are welcome.
> The last serious update seems to have been in 2009.
>
> But have you looked at red hat's source RPMs? If RPMforge packages could
> be based on those, we might as well delete our own packages/rpm/ directory.
> Build scripts for most Subversion packages these days are maintained elsewhere.
I have!!! They only came out a month or so ago as part of RHEL 5.6,
and CentOS hasn't published 5.6 yet, so I've not been working with it
at home. I agree there's potential there: a lot of the RPMforge
weirdness was due to support for RHEL 4, which is now obsolete and
only on "extended support", so a rewrite of that package is
reasonable, but would take considerably longer. And RPMforge is at
least 4 minor releases ahead of RHEL, and it's going to get worse over
time, not better, so RPMforge is still the place to go.
I'm definitely recommending yanking the
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/packages/rpm/{rhel-3,rhel-4}
directories, those haven't worked in years. Let me spend a bit more
time on the rhel-5 version. I think I can make that one more sane.
Received on 2011-03-18 16:13:51 CET