You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by David Summers <da...@summersoft.fay.ar.us> on 2004/05/19 22:23:52 UTC
Re: I can't maintain Fedora Core 1 Subversion RPMs any more (Re:
1.0.3 release scheduling)
On Wed, 19 May 2004 Matthew_Rich@playstation.sony.com wrote:
> Did you find anyone to do this? I might, if I can find a clean FC1 box
> that doesn't have custom RPMs all over it, and the _time_, am I just
> asking for trouble here? :).
>
Nope, as far as I know of, you are the first.
You might start by releaseing the 1.0.3 that just came out.
Please let me know if you have any questions and I'll be glad to try to
answer them.
--
David Wayne Summers "Linux: Because reboots are for hardware upgrades!"
david@summersoft.fay.ar.us PGP Key: http://summersoft.fay.ar.us/~david/pgp.txt
PGP Key fingerprint = C0 E0 4F 50 DD A9 B6 2B 60 A1 31 7E D2 28 6D A8
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Re: I can't maintain Fedora Core 1 Subversion RPMs any
more (Re: 1.0.3 release scheduling)
Posted by David Summers <da...@summersoft.fay.ar.us>.
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Matthew Rich wrote:
> > Right, I don't build a release tarball, I just take the existing working
> > copy and tar it up. Is there some problem with doing that that I'm not
> > aware of? I've never run into any problems doing that. My next question
> > is: Why would you build from both the release tarball AND the RPM? I'm
> > missing something.
>
> Sorry, I wasn't refering to the existing release process, but just the
> fact that building an rpm from a release tar-ball is broken. Like I
> said a minor issue.
>
Ah. I understand now. Good point. I'll cogitate on that a while and see
if there is anything that can be done.
--
David Wayne Summers "Linux: Because reboots are for hardware upgrades!"
david@summersoft.fay.ar.us PGP Key: http://summersoft.fay.ar.us/~david/pgp.txt
PGP Key fingerprint = C0 E0 4F 50 DD A9 B6 2B 60 A1 31 7E D2 28 6D A8
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Re: I can't maintain Fedora Core 1 Subversion RPMs any
more (Re: 1.0.3 release scheduling)
Posted by Matthew Rich <mr...@tigris.org>.
> Right, I don't build a release tarball, I just take the existing working
> copy and tar it up. Is there some problem with doing that that I'm not
> aware of? I've never run into any problems doing that. My next question
> is: Why would you build from both the release tarball AND the RPM? I'm
> missing something.
Sorry, I wasn't refering to the existing release process, but just the
fact that building an rpm from a release tar-ball is broken. Like I
said a minor issue.
-mr
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Re: I can't maintain Fedora Core 1 Subversion RPMs any
more (Re: 1.0.3 release scheduling)
Posted by David Summers <da...@summersoft.fay.ar.us>.
On Mon, 24 May 2004, Matthew Rich wrote:
> another small problem: it seems like the release tarball contains neon/,
> while doing a checkout doesn't, hence building the rpm from a WC would
> use the installed neon libraries, and building an rpm from the release
> tarball always uses the provided neon source code (which breaks the rpm
> by installing files in the buildroot which aren't packaged, which, of
> course, is not a problem with older versions of RHL).
Right, I don't build a release tarball, I just take the existing working
copy and tar it up. Is there some problem with doing that that I'm not
aware of? I've never run into any problems doing that. My next question
is: Why would you build from both the release tarball AND the RPM? I'm
missing something.
> I assume that when building an rpm, we always want to use the existing
> (installed) neon rpm: so it seems that the simplest solution would be to
> change the subversion spec file to always specify something like:
>
> --with-neon=%{_prefix}
>
> (rather than depending on the default behavior of the neon macro),
> the other solution would be to tweak neon.m4 to not be so strict about
> defaulting to building the source code in neon/
>
> btw, posted 1.0.4
>
> Matt
>
> On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 01:07, Matthew Rich wrote:
> > > I've been including that patch (merged from the 1.0.0 branch) for the last
> > > three releases. Yes, it has to be included (patched/merged) into each
> > > build.
> > >
> > > Fortunately, that should change tomorrow with the release of the 1.0.4 as
> > > the patch to fix it (which is in trunk) is now scheduled to be merged in
> > > to 1.0.X branch tomorrow before 1.0.4 is released.
> > oh :P
> >
> > > > The fact that your package build scripts require a repository working
> > > > copy seems a bit contrary to the whole: pristine-source->port&patch
> > > > concept though, which is right up there with: why doesn't tigris.org
> > > > support SSL (the mind boggles), but in any case 1.0.3 is built. You can
> > > > have them if you want them :)
> > >
> > > Hmm. Well, sort of. But I really like just typing "make" or "make
> > > RELEASE=1" in the working copy to build a complete system. Along the way,
> > > it generates a tar-ball, so if anyone else comes along and tries to just
> > > build from the tar-ball, that works also. Maybe "pre-prestine" source
> > > code? :-)
> > no problem there, but it doesn't seem to work with the release tar-ball,
> > which complains about this not being a working copy of course :(. I
> > always liked doing:
> >
> > rpmbuild -ta subversion-1.0.3.tar.gz
> >
> > but that obviously wouldn't work with so many different spec files.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
--
David Wayne Summers "Linux: Because reboots are for hardware upgrades!"
david@summersoft.fay.ar.us PGP Key: http://summersoft.fay.ar.us/~david/pgp.txt
PGP Key fingerprint = C0 E0 4F 50 DD A9 B6 2B 60 A1 31 7E D2 28 6D A8
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Re: I can't maintain Fedora Core 1 Subversion RPMs any
more (Re: 1.0.3 release scheduling)
Posted by Matthew Rich <mr...@tigris.org>.
another small problem: it seems like the release tarball contains neon/,
while doing a checkout doesn't, hence building the rpm from a WC would
use the installed neon libraries, and building an rpm from the release
tarball always uses the provided neon source code (which breaks the rpm
by installing files in the buildroot which aren't packaged, which, of
course, is not a problem with older versions of RHL).
I assume that when building an rpm, we always want to use the existing
(installed) neon rpm: so it seems that the simplest solution would be to
change the subversion spec file to always specify something like:
--with-neon=%{_prefix}
(rather than depending on the default behavior of the neon macro),
the other solution would be to tweak neon.m4 to not be so strict about
defaulting to building the source code in neon/
btw, posted 1.0.4
Matt
On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 01:07, Matthew Rich wrote:
> > I've been including that patch (merged from the 1.0.0 branch) for the last
> > three releases. Yes, it has to be included (patched/merged) into each
> > build.
> >
> > Fortunately, that should change tomorrow with the release of the 1.0.4 as
> > the patch to fix it (which is in trunk) is now scheduled to be merged in
> > to 1.0.X branch tomorrow before 1.0.4 is released.
> oh :P
>
> > > The fact that your package build scripts require a repository working
> > > copy seems a bit contrary to the whole: pristine-source->port&patch
> > > concept though, which is right up there with: why doesn't tigris.org
> > > support SSL (the mind boggles), but in any case 1.0.3 is built. You can
> > > have them if you want them :)
> >
> > Hmm. Well, sort of. But I really like just typing "make" or "make
> > RELEASE=1" in the working copy to build a complete system. Along the way,
> > it generates a tar-ball, so if anyone else comes along and tries to just
> > build from the tar-ball, that works also. Maybe "pre-prestine" source
> > code? :-)
> no problem there, but it doesn't seem to work with the release tar-ball,
> which complains about this not being a working copy of course :(. I
> always liked doing:
>
> rpmbuild -ta subversion-1.0.3.tar.gz
>
> but that obviously wouldn't work with so many different spec files.
>
> Matt
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Re: I can't maintain Fedora Core 1 Subversion RPMs any
more (Re: 1.0.3 release scheduling)
Posted by Matthew Rich <mr...@tigris.org>.
> I've been including that patch (merged from the 1.0.0 branch) for the last
> three releases. Yes, it has to be included (patched/merged) into each
> build.
>
> Fortunately, that should change tomorrow with the release of the 1.0.4 as
> the patch to fix it (which is in trunk) is now scheduled to be merged in
> to 1.0.X branch tomorrow before 1.0.4 is released.
oh :P
> > The fact that your package build scripts require a repository working
> > copy seems a bit contrary to the whole: pristine-source->port&patch
> > concept though, which is right up there with: why doesn't tigris.org
> > support SSL (the mind boggles), but in any case 1.0.3 is built. You can
> > have them if you want them :)
>
> Hmm. Well, sort of. But I really like just typing "make" or "make
> RELEASE=1" in the working copy to build a complete system. Along the way,
> it generates a tar-ball, so if anyone else comes along and tries to just
> build from the tar-ball, that works also. Maybe "pre-prestine" source
> code? :-)
no problem there, but it doesn't seem to work with the release tar-ball,
which complains about this not being a working copy of course :(. I
always liked doing:
rpmbuild -ta subversion-1.0.3.tar.gz
but that obviously wouldn't work with so many different spec files.
Matt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Re: I can't maintain Fedora Core 1 Subversion RPMs any
more (Re: 1.0.3 release scheduling)
Posted by David Summers <da...@summersoft.fay.ar.us>.
On Thu, 20 May 2004, Matthew Rich wrote:
> Unless there is a better solution (or you're building without tests),
> this patch should fix a failure in the getopt test. I have to wonder
> exactly why that test even works though there weren't any changes
> between 1.0.3 and 1.0.2 yet 1.0.2 works fine, hmm, perhaps something I
> missed?
I've been including that patch (merged from the 1.0.0 branch) for the last
three releases. Yes, it has to be included (patched/merged) into each
build.
Fortunately, that should change tomorrow with the release of the 1.0.4 as
the patch to fix it (which is in trunk) is now scheduled to be merged in
to 1.0.X branch tomorrow before 1.0.4 is released.
> The fact that your package build scripts require a repository working
> copy seems a bit contrary to the whole: pristine-source->port&patch
> concept though, which is right up there with: why doesn't tigris.org
> support SSL (the mind boggles), but in any case 1.0.3 is built. You can
> have them if you want them :)
Hmm. Well, sort of. But I really like just typing "make" or "make
RELEASE=1" in the working copy to build a complete system. Along the way,
it generates a tar-ball, so if anyone else comes along and tries to just
build from the tar-ball, that works also. Maybe "pre-prestine" source
code? :-)
> Do you generally sign your packages?
No, I've never done that before.
>
> 1.0.3 : FC1
Great! Thanks! I'll download it and put it on my server! Should be
duplicated on to the UK mirror by the next day.
> Matt
> On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 15:23, David Summers wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 May 2004 Matthew_Rich@playstation.sony.com wrote:
> >
> > > Did you find anyone to do this? I might, if I can find a clean FC1 box
> > > that doesn't have custom RPMs all over it, and the _time_, am I just
> > > asking for trouble here? :).
> > >
> >
> > Nope, as far as I know of, you are the first.
> >
> > You might start by releaseing the 1.0.3 that just came out.
> >
> > Please let me know if you have any questions and I'll be glad to try to
> > answer them.
>
--
David Wayne Summers "Linux: Because reboots are for hardware upgrades!"
david@summersoft.fay.ar.us PGP Key: http://summersoft.fay.ar.us/~david/pgp.txt
PGP Key fingerprint = C0 E0 4F 50 DD A9 B6 2B 60 A1 31 7E D2 28 6D A8
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Re: I can't maintain Fedora Core 1 Subversion RPMs any
more (Re: 1.0.3 release scheduling)
Posted by Matthew Rich <mr...@tigris.org>.
oh sorry about that, hmm, shockingly, I have no server I can post those
to, at the moment, so I just stuck them up here:
http://spe.tigris.org/servlets/ProjectDocumentList?folderID=0
I'll delete them later.
On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 21:44, David Summers wrote:
> Ummm, maybe I missed it, but where can I download those (S)RPMs?
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Thu, 20 May 2004, Matthew Rich wrote:
>
> > Unless there is a better solution (or you're building without tests),
> > this patch should fix a failure in the getopt test. I have to wonder
> > exactly why that test even works though there weren't any changes
> > between 1.0.3 and 1.0.2 yet 1.0.2 works fine, hmm, perhaps something I
> > missed?
> >
> > The fact that your package build scripts require a repository working
> > copy seems a bit contrary to the whole: pristine-source->port&patch
> > concept though, which is right up there with: why doesn't tigris.org
> > support SSL (the mind boggles), but in any case 1.0.3 is built. You can
> > have them if you want them :)
> >
> > Do you generally sign your packages?
> >
> > 1.0.3 : FC1
> >
> > Matt
> > On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 15:23, David Summers wrote:
> > > On Wed, 19 May 2004 Matthew_Rich@playstation.sony.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Did you find anyone to do this? I might, if I can find a clean FC1 box
> > > > that doesn't have custom RPMs all over it, and the _time_, am I just
> > > > asking for trouble here? :).
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nope, as far as I know of, you are the first.
> > >
> > > You might start by releaseing the 1.0.3 that just came out.
> > >
> > > Please let me know if you have any questions and I'll be glad to try to
> > > answer them.
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Re: I can't maintain Fedora Core 1 Subversion RPMs any
more (Re: 1.0.3 release scheduling)
Posted by David Summers <da...@summersoft.fay.ar.us>.
Ummm, maybe I missed it, but where can I download those (S)RPMs?
Thanks!
On Thu, 20 May 2004, Matthew Rich wrote:
> Unless there is a better solution (or you're building without tests),
> this patch should fix a failure in the getopt test. I have to wonder
> exactly why that test even works though there weren't any changes
> between 1.0.3 and 1.0.2 yet 1.0.2 works fine, hmm, perhaps something I
> missed?
>
> The fact that your package build scripts require a repository working
> copy seems a bit contrary to the whole: pristine-source->port&patch
> concept though, which is right up there with: why doesn't tigris.org
> support SSL (the mind boggles), but in any case 1.0.3 is built. You can
> have them if you want them :)
>
> Do you generally sign your packages?
>
> 1.0.3 : FC1
>
> Matt
> On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 15:23, David Summers wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 May 2004 Matthew_Rich@playstation.sony.com wrote:
> >
> > > Did you find anyone to do this? I might, if I can find a clean FC1 box
> > > that doesn't have custom RPMs all over it, and the _time_, am I just
> > > asking for trouble here? :).
> > >
> >
> > Nope, as far as I know of, you are the first.
> >
> > You might start by releaseing the 1.0.3 that just came out.
> >
> > Please let me know if you have any questions and I'll be glad to try to
> > answer them.
>
--
David Wayne Summers "Linux: Because reboots are for hardware upgrades!"
david@summersoft.fay.ar.us PGP Key: http://summersoft.fay.ar.us/~david/pgp.txt
PGP Key fingerprint = C0 E0 4F 50 DD A9 B6 2B 60 A1 31 7E D2 28 6D A8
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
[PATCH] Re: I can't maintain Fedora Core 1 Subversion RPMs any
more (Re: 1.0.3 release scheduling)
Posted by Matthew Rich <mr...@tigris.org>.
Unless there is a better solution (or you're building without tests),
this patch should fix a failure in the getopt test. I have to wonder
exactly why that test even works though there weren't any changes
between 1.0.3 and 1.0.2 yet 1.0.2 works fine, hmm, perhaps something I
missed?
The fact that your package build scripts require a repository working
copy seems a bit contrary to the whole: pristine-source->port&patch
concept though, which is right up there with: why doesn't tigris.org
support SSL (the mind boggles), but in any case 1.0.3 is built. You can
have them if you want them :)
Do you generally sign your packages?
1.0.3 : FC1
Matt
On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 15:23, David Summers wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 Matthew_Rich@playstation.sony.com wrote:
>
> > Did you find anyone to do this? I might, if I can find a clean FC1 box
> > that doesn't have custom RPMs all over it, and the _time_, am I just
> > asking for trouble here? :).
> >
>
> Nope, as far as I know of, you are the first.
>
> You might start by releaseing the 1.0.3 that just came out.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions and I'll be glad to try to
> answer them.
--
Matthew Rich <mr...@tigris.org>