You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by "Robert P. J. Day" <rp...@mindspring.com> on 2004/03/21 11:31:39 UTC
upgrading FC1 system from the summersoft repo?
has anyone else updated their FC1 system to subversion 1.0.1 from
the summersoft repo? i did that, and it's causing all sorts of problems
based on what looks like the libdb-related RPMs at that repo.
from what i can tell, those "db42*" RPMs don't officially provide
libdb-4.1.so capability, which breaks a number of other things. i'm
going to investigate further, but i'd be interested in hearing from
anyone who's updated subversion on their FC1 system, and how well
it worked.
rday
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: upgrading FC1 system from the summersoft repo?
Posted by Craig Robson <cr...@zhatt.com>.
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 09:07, Adam Gibson wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 11:33, Craig Robson wrote:
> > Many people have seen the problems with db4.1. I ran many tests and with
> > db4.1 and the problems were quite repeatable. Lockups, wedged repository,
> > etc.
> >
> > One test that we used was to create a new repository and grab the gcc source
> > code and try to check it in and out a few times. It always failed on db4.1
> > for me.
>
> Thanks for the input. I assume you are not running Fedora Core 1(let me
> know if you already tested that). I plan to run the same tests on
> Fedora Core 1... I suspect that RedHat backported fixes that were made
> in 4.2 of db into Fedora's Core 1's db 4.1 that caused most of the
> problems in subversion. RedHat tends to do that a lot. What I am
> hoping is that the default 4.1 is bad to use, but RedHat's(Fedora Core 1
> specifically) version is ok to use. So far(since .32 I haven't had any
> issues).
>
> If you can think of any other scenarios to test to try and find any
> issues with using Fedora's Core 1's db 4.1, let me know.
>
> I realize that subversion developers are safe just saying don't use db
> 4.1 without exception. I don't really expect an official "It's ok to
> use Fedora Core 1's db 4.1", but if I find some scenarios to test that
> does not work on most db 4.1 installations, but work fine on Fedora Core
> 1's db 4.1 I will end up just using the same 4.1 with FC1 that I have
> been using.
>
I ran my tests on both Fedora Core 1 and Redhat Enterprise 3. Both
failed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: upgrading FC1 system from the summersoft repo?
Posted by Adam Gibson <ag...@ptm.com>.
On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 11:33, Craig Robson wrote:
> Many people have seen the problems with db4.1. I ran many tests and with
> db4.1 and the problems were quite repeatable. Lockups, wedged repository,
> etc.
>
> One test that we used was to create a new repository and grab the gcc source
> code and try to check it in and out a few times. It always failed on db4.1
> for me.
Thanks for the input. I assume you are not running Fedora Core 1(let me
know if you already tested that). I plan to run the same tests on
Fedora Core 1... I suspect that RedHat backported fixes that were made
in 4.2 of db into Fedora's Core 1's db 4.1 that caused most of the
problems in subversion. RedHat tends to do that a lot. What I am
hoping is that the default 4.1 is bad to use, but RedHat's(Fedora Core 1
specifically) version is ok to use. So far(since .32 I haven't had any
issues).
If you can think of any other scenarios to test to try and find any
issues with using Fedora's Core 1's db 4.1, let me know.
I realize that subversion developers are safe just saying don't use db
4.1 without exception. I don't really expect an official "It's ok to
use Fedora Core 1's db 4.1", but if I find some scenarios to test that
does not work on most db 4.1 installations, but work fine on Fedora Core
1's db 4.1 I will end up just using the same 4.1 with FC1 that I have
been using.
--
Adam Gibson <ag...@ptm.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: upgrading FC1 system from the summersoft repo?
Posted by Craig Robson <cr...@zhatt.com>.
Many people have seen the problems with db4.1. I ran many tests and with
db4.1 and the problems were quite repeatable. Lockups, wedged repository,
etc.
One test that we used was to create a new repository and grab the gcc source
code and try to check it in and out a few times. It always failed on db4.1
for me.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Gibson" <ag...@ptm.com>
To: <us...@subversion.tigris.org>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: upgrading FC1 system from the summersoft repo?
> I appreciate all the work that the packager of the summersoft site has
> gone through to supply us all with easily installable packages of
> subversion(hats off to you).
>
> I am rather surprised though that he didn't just compile it against the
> already installed db4-4.1.25-14. I have not had any problems with the
> db4 that fedora core 1 comes with going back to version .32 of
> subversion(currently at .37). That would have solved needing a new db4
> and needing to supply another version of apache, which can break
> dependencies on other third party RPMS that require the fedora core 1
> httpd and db4(not so much db4 now since he has a special db42 rpm).
>
> I realize that db 4.1 is not recommended going by previous posts from
> other distros, but RedHat tends to backport fixes to packages, so maybe
> that is why 4.1 works fine for me. Is there something I am missing that
> would require not using the httpd and db4 4.1.25 that redhat supplies
> with fedora core 1?
>
> I plan to just take the subversion src rpm on summersoft.fay.ar.us and
> recompile it on the current fedora core 1 so that I can use the existing
> httpd and db4. Has anyone already done this and had problems? It would
> have been nice to just yum update off of summersoft.fay.ar.us binaries
> though without changing the current db4 and httpd.
>
> On Sun, 2004-03-21 at 06:31, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > has anyone else updated their FC1 system to subversion 1.0.1 from
> > the summersoft repo? i did that, and it's causing all sorts of problems
> > based on what looks like the libdb-related RPMs at that repo.
> >
> > from what i can tell, those "db42*" RPMs don't officially provide
> > libdb-4.1.so capability, which breaks a number of other things. i'm
> > going to investigate further, but i'd be interested in hearing from
> > anyone who's updated subversion on their FC1 system, and how well
> > it worked.
> >
> > rday
>
> --
> Adam Gibson <ag...@ptm.com>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: upgrading FC1 system from the summersoft repo?
Posted by Adam Gibson <ag...@ptm.com>.
I appreciate all the work that the packager of the summersoft site has
gone through to supply us all with easily installable packages of
subversion(hats off to you).
I am rather surprised though that he didn't just compile it against the
already installed db4-4.1.25-14. I have not had any problems with the
db4 that fedora core 1 comes with going back to version .32 of
subversion(currently at .37). That would have solved needing a new db4
and needing to supply another version of apache, which can break
dependencies on other third party RPMS that require the fedora core 1
httpd and db4(not so much db4 now since he has a special db42 rpm).
I realize that db 4.1 is not recommended going by previous posts from
other distros, but RedHat tends to backport fixes to packages, so maybe
that is why 4.1 works fine for me. Is there something I am missing that
would require not using the httpd and db4 4.1.25 that redhat supplies
with fedora core 1?
I plan to just take the subversion src rpm on summersoft.fay.ar.us and
recompile it on the current fedora core 1 so that I can use the existing
httpd and db4. Has anyone already done this and had problems? It would
have been nice to just yum update off of summersoft.fay.ar.us binaries
though without changing the current db4 and httpd.
On Sun, 2004-03-21 at 06:31, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> has anyone else updated their FC1 system to subversion 1.0.1 from
> the summersoft repo? i did that, and it's causing all sorts of problems
> based on what looks like the libdb-related RPMs at that repo.
>
> from what i can tell, those "db42*" RPMs don't officially provide
> libdb-4.1.so capability, which breaks a number of other things. i'm
> going to investigate further, but i'd be interested in hearing from
> anyone who's updated subversion on their FC1 system, and how well
> it worked.
>
> rday
--
Adam Gibson <ag...@ptm.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: upgrading FC1 system from the summersoft repo?
Posted by Raymond <su...@bigriverinfotech.com>.
> from what i can tell, those "db42*" RPMs don't officially provide
> libdb-4.1.so capability, which breaks a number of other things. i'm
> going to investigate further, but i'd be interested in hearing from
> anyone who's updated subversion on their FC1 system, and how well
> it worked.
If the first time, then only install (rpm -ivh) the db42 database and
optionally the debug RPM, not the ancillary db42 RPMs. This will allow
coexistence of db4 and db42. Otherwise, just update (rpm -Uvh) the
aforementioned db42 RPMs (again, not the ancillary db42 RPMs).
Raymond
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org