You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Malcolm Rowe <ma...@farside.org.uk> on 2006/07/04 13:51:33 UTC
Should we ship a newer version of APR with 1.4.0-rcNEXT?
So, Subversion 1.4.0-rc1 was built with APR 0.9.7. Given the bugs fixed
in APR since 0.9.7, should we consider building the next -rc with a
newer version (0.9.12?)
I'm particularly thinking of glibc-2.4 compatibility [1], but there
appear to be some win32 changes that might be good as well.
Regards,
Malcolm
[1] Which appears as though it may cause nasty problems like that reported in
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2006-07/0050.shtml
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Should we ship a newer version of APR with 1.4.0-rcNEXT?
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@softlanding.com>.
Lieven Govaerts <lg...@mobsol.be> wrote on 07/04/2006 10:16:57 AM:
> The current RC1 doesn't even work on Windows, because the included
neon-0.25.5
> doesn't support apr 0.9.7, so either we upgrade apr or we downgrade neon
to
> 0.24.7. See these mails for more info:
>
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2006-06/0264.shtml
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2006-06/0845.shtml (my report)
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2006-06/0718.shtml (Paul Burba's report)
That is not exactly accurate. The issue is simply packaging. There is a
bug in the APR packaging where there are some version macros in expat.in
that are not expanded. Ideally, Subversion would fix this before making
the .zip file. I am not sure if newer versions of APR have this problem
or not. If you fix the file yourself it compiles fine. And I think all
versions of Neon are affected by this, not just the latest.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Should we ship a newer version of APR with 1.4.0-rcNEXT?
Posted by Lieven Govaerts <lg...@mobsol.be>.
Quoting Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com>:
> On 7/4/06, Malcolm Rowe <ma...@farside.org.uk> wrote:
> > So, Subversion 1.4.0-rc1 was built with APR 0.9.7. Given the bugs fixed
> > in APR since 0.9.7, should we consider building the next -rc with a
> > newer version (0.9.12?)
>
> Given that APR should be backward compatible, why not always ship with
> the newest?
The current RC1 doesn't even work on Windows, because the included neon-0.25.5
doesn't support apr 0.9.7, so either we upgrade apr or we downgrade neon to
0.24.7. See these mails for more info:
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2006-06/0264.shtml
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2006-06/0845.shtml (my report)
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2006-06/0718.shtml (Paul Burba's report)
Lieven.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Should we ship a newer version of APR with 1.4.0-rcNEXT?
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
On 7/4/06, Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net> wrote:
> Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 03:59:22PM +0200, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> >> On 7/4/06, Malcolm Rowe <ma...@farside.org.uk> wrote:
> >>> So, Subversion 1.4.0-rc1 was built with APR 0.9.7. Given the bugs fixed
> >>> in APR since 0.9.7, should we consider building the next -rc with a
> >>> newer version (0.9.12?)
> >> Given that APR should be backward compatible, why not always ship with
> >> the newest?
> >>
> >
> > Good question. We recommend 0.9.7 in INSTALL, but I suspect that's
> > just because we test and ship with 0.9.7, rather than because of any
> > particular reason that 0.9.7 is superior to 0.9.8+.
>
> 0.9.7 is in INSTALL simply because it was the best available at the time
> INSTALL was last updated, I think.
>
> We should be track the latest official release of 0.9.x.
+1, unless there is a good reason not to do so we should be using the
newest version of all the dependencies we ship.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Should we ship a newer version of APR with 1.4.0-rcNEXT?
Posted by Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net>.
Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 03:59:22PM +0200, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>> On 7/4/06, Malcolm Rowe <ma...@farside.org.uk> wrote:
>>> So, Subversion 1.4.0-rc1 was built with APR 0.9.7. Given the bugs fixed
>>> in APR since 0.9.7, should we consider building the next -rc with a
>>> newer version (0.9.12?)
>> Given that APR should be backward compatible, why not always ship with
>> the newest?
>>
>
> Good question. We recommend 0.9.7 in INSTALL, but I suspect that's
> just because we test and ship with 0.9.7, rather than because of any
> particular reason that 0.9.7 is superior to 0.9.8+.
0.9.7 is in INSTALL simply because it was the best available at the time
INSTALL was last updated, I think.
We should be track the latest official release of 0.9.x.
Max.
Re: Should we ship a newer version of APR with 1.4.0-rcNEXT?
Posted by Malcolm Rowe <ma...@farside.org.uk>.
On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 03:59:22PM +0200, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> On 7/4/06, Malcolm Rowe <ma...@farside.org.uk> wrote:
> >So, Subversion 1.4.0-rc1 was built with APR 0.9.7. Given the bugs fixed
> >in APR since 0.9.7, should we consider building the next -rc with a
> >newer version (0.9.12?)
>
> Given that APR should be backward compatible, why not always ship with
> the newest?
>
Good question. We recommend 0.9.7 in INSTALL, but I suspect that's
just because we test and ship with 0.9.7, rather than because of any
particular reason that 0.9.7 is superior to 0.9.8+.
Regards,
Malcolm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Should we ship a newer version of APR with 1.4.0-rcNEXT?
Posted by Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com>.
On 7/4/06, Malcolm Rowe <ma...@farside.org.uk> wrote:
> So, Subversion 1.4.0-rc1 was built with APR 0.9.7. Given the bugs fixed
> in APR since 0.9.7, should we consider building the next -rc with a
> newer version (0.9.12?)
Given that APR should be backward compatible, why not always ship with
the newest?
bye,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org