You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@subversion.apache.org by da...@apache.org on 2015/09/23 15:29:31 UTC
svn commit: r1704847 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c
Author: danielsh
Date: Wed Sep 23 13:29:30 2015
New Revision: 1704847
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1704847&view=rev
Log:
* subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c
(ra_serf_version): Report both built- and run-time versions of libserf,
like we do for everything else.
Modified:
subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c
Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c?rev=1704847&r1=1704846&r2=1704847&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c (original)
+++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c Wed Sep 23 13:29:30 2015
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ ra_serf_version(void)
#define RA_SERF_DESCRIPTION_VER \
N_("Module for accessing a repository via WebDAV protocol using serf.\n" \
- " - using serf %d.%d.%d")
+ " - using serf %d.%d.%d (compiled with %d.%d.%d)")
/* Implements svn_ra__vtable_t.get_description(). */
static const char *
@@ -73,7 +73,12 @@ ra_serf_get_description(apr_pool_t *pool
int major, minor, patch;
serf_lib_version(&major, &minor, &patch);
- return apr_psprintf(pool, _(RA_SERF_DESCRIPTION_VER), major, minor, patch);
+ return apr_psprintf(pool, _(RA_SERF_DESCRIPTION_VER),
+ major, minor, patch,
+ SERF_MAJOR_VERSION,
+ SERF_MINOR_VERSION,
+ SERF_PATCH_VERSION
+ );
}
/* Implements svn_ra__vtable_t.get_schemes(). */
Re: svn commit: r1704847 -
/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org>.
Bert Huijben wrote on Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 15:42:29 +0200:
> Perhaps we should move the serf version to the standard list of linked
> dependencies and do something smarter there.
>
> Now it is just extending an ra implementation description, while ra_svn
> doesn't report the version of Cyrus Sasl at all.
Then we should add the libsasl compile- and run-time version to the output :)
Re: svn commit: r1704847 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c
Posted by Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com>.
On 23 September 2015 at 16:42, Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:danielsh@apache.org]
>> Sent: woensdag 23 september 2015 15:39
>> To: Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com>
>> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1704847 -
>> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c
>>
>> Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 16:32:15 +0300:
>> > On 23 September 2015 at 16:29, <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > > Author: danielsh
>> > > Date: Wed Sep 23 13:29:30 2015
>> > > New Revision: 1704847
>> > >
>> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1704847&view=rev
>> > > Log:
>> > > * subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c
>> > > (ra_serf_version): Report both built- and run-time versions of
> libserf,
>> > > like we do for everything else.
>> > >
>> > May be we should report them separately only if built and runt-time
>> > versions are different?
>>
>> We unconditionally report both versions for everything. (And I think
>> that's fine.)
>
> Perhaps we should move the serf version to the standard list of linked
> dependencies and do something smarter there.
>
We cannot do this, since serf is dependency of libsvn_ra_serf. The
libsvn_subr doesn't link to serf or openssl directly.
What we can do is add another RA vtable member to report RA
dependencies version.
--
Ivan Zhakov
RE: svn commit: r1704847 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c
Posted by Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:danielsh@apache.org]
> Sent: woensdag 23 september 2015 15:39
> To: Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com>
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1704847 -
> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c
>
> Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 16:32:15 +0300:
> > On 23 September 2015 at 16:29, <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Author: danielsh
> > > Date: Wed Sep 23 13:29:30 2015
> > > New Revision: 1704847
> > >
> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1704847&view=rev
> > > Log:
> > > * subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c
> > > (ra_serf_version): Report both built- and run-time versions of
libserf,
> > > like we do for everything else.
> > >
> > May be we should report them separately only if built and runt-time
> > versions are different?
>
> We unconditionally report both versions for everything. (And I think
> that's fine.)
Perhaps we should move the serf version to the standard list of linked
dependencies and do something smarter there.
Now it is just extending an ra implementation description, while ra_svn
doesn't report the version of Cyrus Sasl at all.
Bert
Re: svn commit: r1704847 -
/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <da...@apache.org>.
Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 16:32:15 +0300:
> On 23 September 2015 at 16:29, <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Author: danielsh
> > Date: Wed Sep 23 13:29:30 2015
> > New Revision: 1704847
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1704847&view=rev
> > Log:
> > * subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c
> > (ra_serf_version): Report both built- and run-time versions of libserf,
> > like we do for everything else.
> >
> May be we should report them separately only if built and runt-time
> versions are different?
We unconditionally report both versions for everything. (And I think
that's fine.)
Re: svn commit: r1704847 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c
Posted by Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com>.
On 23 September 2015 at 16:29, <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: danielsh
> Date: Wed Sep 23 13:29:30 2015
> New Revision: 1704847
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1704847&view=rev
> Log:
> * subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c
> (ra_serf_version): Report both built- and run-time versions of libserf,
> like we do for everything else.
>
May be we should report them separately only if built and runt-time
versions are different?
--
Ivan Zhakov