You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Marc Haisenko <ha...@comdasys.com> on 2008/01/02 11:50:42 UTC
Re: SVN client vs CVS client
On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Anoop kumar V wrote:
> I am not sure if this is true. But my observation is this:
>
> CVS commandline clients seem more user friendly than SVN commandline
> clients.
>
> In CVS, there is just one file that can be placed in the path and executed.
> There is nothing to install and you do not need superuser / root permission
> to run the client.
>
> In SVN, it seems, you need to go through installation - the binaries are
> rarely available - it took a long time to find one for Solaris. And the
> instructions said that I need to be root to install and use the client.
>
> I am not complaining here - I am only trying to understand if the above is
> true. And how does one go about using an svn client (not a server) from
> solaris commandline. I cannot install anything, just want to connect &
> checkout code kept on an SVN server.
>
> Is this easily possible?
>
> Thanks,
> Anoop
Well, this thread got me worried a bit because I think there's a lack of basic
OS knowledge.
Both CVS and SVN can be installed as root and as non-root. Whether you need
root privileges is not dependent on the program but where you install it.
Almost all binary packages are meant to be installed for system-wide usage
and this means they want to install in /usr, which needs you to be root to
write there. This is true for both CVS and SVN ! Installing /usr/bin/cvs
needs root access as well.
So if you compile from source and don't want to be root (e.g. you just want to
try it out) you'd do something like:
./configure --prefix=/home/me/svn
make
make install
You'd end up with SubVersion in /home/me/svn/bin/svn.
Now, as soon as you got it installed (no matter where) you won't need root
privileges for either one. You do not need to be root to run SubVersion or
CVS.
Hope that clarifies things a bit.
Bye,
Marc
--
Marc Haisenko
Comdasys AG
Rüdesheimer Str. 7
80686 München
Germany
Tel.: +49 (0)89 548 433 321
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN client vs CVS client
Posted by Anoop kumar V <an...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 2, 2008 11:54 AM, <km...@rockwellcollins.com> wrote:
> Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com> wrote on 01/02/2008 10:44:54 AM:
> > Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> > >>
> > >> It is the same OS - one binary file achieves everything. Now in SVN
> the
> > >> installation path seems hardwired into the program such that I cannot
> just
> > >> drop and expect a binary to run as a client. All it needs to do is
> just
> > >> connect to SVN with the user name and password and check out code.
> > >
> > > Which clearly explains there are basic OS understanding issues going
> > > on here. It's not Subversion which requires this behaviour.
> > > Subversion, in contrast to CVS is -however - built up from a number of
> > > libraries. This is a concious design decision to allow easier creation
> > > of other Subversion clients than the standard command line interface.
> > > Something that is non-trivial with CVS.
> >
> > It still would normally be possible to build a static-linked binary if
> > you wanted one, though. But I think I recall seeing something about
> > this being a problem on Solaris because some of the gcc libs aren't
> > built for static linkage. Regardless, you should be able to put the
> > needed libs somewhere where you have write permission and set
> > LD_LIBRARY_PATH appropriately to find them.
>
> Static binaries for Solaris are not impossible to build, just need some
> non standard configuration changes.
>
> Some pre-built ones are available at:
> http://www.uncc.org/svntools/clients/
>
> NOTE: I didn't create these, just found them awhile ago...
>
> Kevin R.
>
>
Yes - that is what I have been looking for - let me see how well it works.
Thanks so much. I think this is the striking parallel to the cvs client I
was mentioning about.
Thanks,
Anoop
Re: SVN client vs CVS client
Posted by Anoop kumar V <an...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 2, 2008 11:44 AM, Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> >>
> >> It is the same OS - one binary file achieves everything. Now in SVN the
> >> installation path seems hardwired into the program such that I cannot
> just
> >> drop and expect a binary to run as a client. All it needs to do is just
> >> connect to SVN with the user name and password and check out code.
> >
> > Which clearly explains there are basic OS understanding issues going
> > on here. It's not Subversion which requires this behaviour.
> > Subversion, in contrast to CVS is -however - built up from a number of
> > libraries. This is a concious design decision to allow easier creation
> > of other Subversion clients than the standard command line interface.
> > Something that is non-trivial with CVS.
>
> It still would normally be possible to build a static-linked binary if
> you wanted one, though. But I think I recall seeing something about
> this being a problem on Solaris because some of the gcc libs aren't
> built for static linkage. Regardless, you should be able to put the
> needed libs somewhere where you have write permission and set
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH appropriately to find them.
>
> --
> Les Mikesell
> lesmikesell@gmail.com
>
>
Thanks - the svnkit which is a java solution (with platform independence and
all) seems to satisfy all my requirements more than satisfactorily for now.
It may be the case that the subversion client design is trying to reinvent
the java way of platform independence - which I am sure is good - more
choice and all.
Les Mikesell's solution was how I was expecting svn to work - the client
part at least - cvs works just like that - add it to the path, set some env
variables and you are good to checkout from a remote repository.
probably if I build one binary with a local path, I can reuse the same
binary to drop into my many solaris servers (we have zones). In that way I
would never have to use root privileges except may be for creating the first
binary (which I can do in a VMWare installation or something)
Anoop
Re: SVN client vs CVS client
Posted by km...@rockwellcollins.com.
Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com> wrote on 01/02/2008 10:44:54 AM:
> Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> >>
> >> It is the same OS - one binary file achieves everything. Now in SVN
the
> >> installation path seems hardwired into the program such that I cannot
just
> >> drop and expect a binary to run as a client. All it needs to do is
just
> >> connect to SVN with the user name and password and check out code.
> >
> > Which clearly explains there are basic OS understanding issues going
> > on here. It's not Subversion which requires this behaviour.
> > Subversion, in contrast to CVS is -however - built up from a number of
> > libraries. This is a concious design decision to allow easier creation
> > of other Subversion clients than the standard command line interface.
> > Something that is non-trivial with CVS.
>
> It still would normally be possible to build a static-linked binary if
> you wanted one, though. But I think I recall seeing something about
> this being a problem on Solaris because some of the gcc libs aren't
> built for static linkage. Regardless, you should be able to put the
> needed libs somewhere where you have write permission and set
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH appropriately to find them.
Static binaries for Solaris are not impossible to build, just need some
non standard configuration changes.
Some pre-built ones are available at:
http://www.uncc.org/svntools/clients/
NOTE: I didn't create these, just found them awhile ago...
Kevin R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN client vs CVS client
Posted by Les Mikesell <le...@gmail.com>.
Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>>
>> It is the same OS - one binary file achieves everything. Now in SVN the
>> installation path seems hardwired into the program such that I cannot just
>> drop and expect a binary to run as a client. All it needs to do is just
>> connect to SVN with the user name and password and check out code.
>
> Which clearly explains there are basic OS understanding issues going
> on here. It's not Subversion which requires this behaviour.
> Subversion, in contrast to CVS is -however - built up from a number of
> libraries. This is a concious design decision to allow easier creation
> of other Subversion clients than the standard command line interface.
> Something that is non-trivial with CVS.
It still would normally be possible to build a static-linked binary if
you wanted one, though. But I think I recall seeing something about
this being a problem on Solaris because some of the gcc libs aren't
built for static linkage. Regardless, you should be able to put the
needed libs somewhere where you have write permission and set
LD_LIBRARY_PATH appropriately to find them.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN client vs CVS client
Posted by Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com>.
On 1/2/08, Anoop kumar V <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 2008 6:50 AM, Marc Haisenko <ha...@comdasys.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Anoop kumar V wrote:
> > > I am not sure if this is true. But my observation is this:
> > >
> > > CVS commandline clients seem more user friendly than SVN commandline
> > > clients.
> > >
> > > In CVS, there is just one file that can be placed in the path and
> executed.
> > > There is nothing to install and you do not need superuser / root
> permission
> > > to run the client.
> > >
> > > In SVN, it seems, you need to go through installation - the binaries are
> > > rarely available - it took a long time to find one for Solaris. And the
> > > instructions said that I need to be root to install and use the client.
> > >
> > > I am not complaining here - I am only trying to understand if the above
> is
> > > true. And how does one go about using an svn client (not a server) from
> > > solaris commandline. I cannot install anything, just want to connect &
> > > checkout code kept on an SVN server.
> > >
> > > Is this easily possible?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Anoop
> >
> > Well, this thread got me worried a bit because I think there's a lack of
> basic
> > OS knowledge.
> >
> > Both CVS and SVN can be installed as root and as non-root. Whether you
> need
> > root privileges is not dependent on the program but where you install it.
> > Almost all binary packages are meant to be installed for system-wide usage
> > and this means they want to install in /usr, which needs you to be root to
> > write there. This is true for both CVS and SVN ! Installing /usr/bin/cvs
> > needs root access as well.
> >
> > So if you compile from source and don't want to be root ( e.g. you just
> want to
> > try it out) you'd do something like:
> > ./configure --prefix=/home/me/svn
> > make
> > make install
> >
> > You'd end up with SubVersion in /home/me/svn/bin/svn.
> >
> > Now, as soon as you got it installed (no matter where) you won't need root
> > privileges for either one. You do not need to be root to run SubVersion or
> > CVS.
> >
> > Hope that clarifies things a bit.
> > Bye,
> > Marc
> >
> > --
> > Marc Haisenko
> >
> > Comdasys AG
> > Rüdesheimer Str. 7
> > 80686 München
> > Germany
> >
> > Tel.: +49 (0)89 548 433 321
> >
>
>
>
> Thanks Marc. I think I do have more than basic OS knowledge and would beg to
> differ that this issue is not much related to OS.
>
> What I was trying to highlight is how a CVS executable can just be dropped
> in the PATH. Look at this link:
> http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.cvs.help/browse_thread/thread/b19e87048d2afe98/eb8947608caff299?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#eb8947608caff299
> or click here
>
> It is the same OS - one binary file achieves everything. Now in SVN the
> installation path seems hardwired into the program such that I cannot just
> drop and expect a binary to run as a client. All it needs to do is just
> connect to SVN with the user name and password and check out code.
Which clearly explains there are basic OS understanding issues going
on here. It's not Subversion which requires this behaviour.
Subversion, in contrast to CVS is -however - built up from a number of
libraries. This is a concious design decision to allow easier creation
of other Subversion clients than the standard command line interface.
Something that is non-trivial with CVS.
bye,
Erik.
Re: SVN client vs CVS client
Posted by Anoop kumar V <an...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 2, 2008 6:50 AM, Marc Haisenko <ha...@comdasys.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Anoop kumar V wrote:
> > I am not sure if this is true. But my observation is this:
> >
> > CVS commandline clients seem more user friendly than SVN commandline
> > clients.
> >
> > In CVS, there is just one file that can be placed in the path and
> executed.
> > There is nothing to install and you do not need superuser / root
> permission
> > to run the client.
> >
> > In SVN, it seems, you need to go through installation - the binaries are
> > rarely available - it took a long time to find one for Solaris. And the
> > instructions said that I need to be root to install and use the client.
> >
> > I am not complaining here - I am only trying to understand if the above
> is
> > true. And how does one go about using an svn client (not a server) from
> > solaris commandline. I cannot install anything, just want to connect &
> > checkout code kept on an SVN server.
> >
> > Is this easily possible?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Anoop
>
> Well, this thread got me worried a bit because I think there's a lack of
> basic
> OS knowledge.
>
> Both CVS and SVN can be installed as root and as non-root. Whether you
> need
> root privileges is not dependent on the program but where you install it.
> Almost all binary packages are meant to be installed for system-wide usage
> and this means they want to install in /usr, which needs you to be root to
> write there. This is true for both CVS and SVN ! Installing /usr/bin/cvs
> needs root access as well.
>
> So if you compile from source and don't want to be root (e.g. you just
> want to
> try it out) you'd do something like:
> ./configure --prefix=/home/me/svn
> make
> make install
>
> You'd end up with SubVersion in /home/me/svn/bin/svn.
>
> Now, as soon as you got it installed (no matter where) you won't need root
> privileges for either one. You do not need to be root to run SubVersion or
> CVS.
>
> Hope that clarifies things a bit.
> Bye,
> Marc
>
> --
> Marc Haisenko
>
> Comdasys AG
> Rüdesheimer Str. 7
> 80686 München
> Germany
>
> Tel.: +49 (0)89 548 433 321
>
Thanks Marc. I think I do have more than basic OS knowledge and would beg to
differ that this issue is not much related to OS.
What I was trying to highlight is how a CVS executable can just be dropped
in the PATH. Look at this link:
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.cvs.help/browse_thread/thread/b19e87048d2afe98/eb8947608caff299?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#eb8947608caff299
or click here<http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.cvs.help/browse_thread/thread/b19e87048d2afe98/eb8947608caff299?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#eb8947608caff299>
It is the same OS - one binary file achieves everything. Now in SVN the
installation path seems hardwired into the program such that I cannot just
drop and expect a binary to run as a client. All it needs to do is just
connect to SVN with the user name and password and check out code.