You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by David Summers <da...@summersoft.fay.ar.us> on 2002/09/25 00:17:30 UTC
CVS2SVN - Thoughts for RPMs?
I still haven't gotten cvs2svn to work yet but it compiles great. Does it
require the new apache-2.0.42 to work?
I'm getting ready to commit my changes to the Subversion RPMs and wanted
to get people's thoughts on cvs2svn/swig, etc., requirements.
Right now I've got the Subversion RPM building another binary package
called subversion-cvs2svn which depends on the swig RPMs. Is that OK? Or
would people (users) rather not have another RPM package and just add
another dependency to the base Subversion RPM?
--
David Wayne Summers "Linux: Because reboots are for 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: CVS2SVN - Thoughts for RPMs?
Posted by Robert Schiele <rs...@uni-mannheim.de>.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:59:03AM -0400, Tim Moloney wrote:
> The (null) beta does include httpd 2.0.40 so I agree. We'll find out
> for sure on Monday. =)
>
> Note that Red Hat (null), and I assume the upcoming 8.0, did not split
> out apr/apr-util so if you want to only install Subversion clients
> without Apache you'll still need to maintain your apache, apr, and
> apr-util RPMs.
SuSE does also ship apr libraries, and they ship it in a separate
package with the 8.1 release that is going public these days here in
Germany. The reason for this might be that they also ship subversion
(0.14.2).
Robert
--
Robert Schiele Tel.: +49-621-181-2517
Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de
Re: CVS2SVN - Thoughts for RPMs?
Posted by Tim Moloney <mo...@mrsl.com>.
Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 09:47:08AM -0400, Tim Moloney wrote:
>
>>I noticed that you break out the apr/apr-util libraries into
>>separate RPMs. This is fine if you want to install apr/apr-util
>>but not httpd. I wouldn't expect many applications like this so
>>I wouldn't break out the libapr* RPMs the way that you do.
>
> I absolutely would do this. APR(UTIL) and httpd are versioned independently
> and have their own release cycles. To me, that implies distinct RPMs.
I haven't looked at apr/apr-util recently. I didn't realize they had
been assigned version numbers.
> Over time, I hope that we'll see more users of APR(UTIL), so having a
> distinct RPM will also be a Good Thing(tm).
Good point. I guess that is what you'd call "planning ahead".
David Summers wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Tim Moloney wrote:
>
>>I noticed that you break out the apr/apr-util libraries into
>>separate RPMs. This is fine if you want to install apr/apr-util
>>but not httpd. I wouldn't expect many applications like this so
>>I wouldn't break out the libapr* RPMs the way that you do.
>
> I did that so that people could install the subversion client without
> having to install the Apache server.
Ah, makes sense.
> I think that RedHat 8.0 will finally use the new Apache 2.X series so
> then I should not have to maintain the Apache server RPMS to get it to
> work with Subversion.
The (null) beta does include httpd 2.0.40 so I agree. We'll find out
for sure on Monday. =)
Note that Red Hat (null), and I assume the upcoming 8.0, did not split
out apr/apr-util so if you want to only install Subversion clients
without Apache you'll still need to maintain your apache, apr, and
apr-util RPMs.
I guess my scope was too limited. David and Greg are looking at the
bigger picture.
The point I was trying to make is "If you want to minimize the
number of RPMs required to install Subversion on (null)/8.0, don't
split out apr/apr-util". However, if you want more flexibility,
then split them out. I now believe the correct answer is for Red
Hat to split them out in their next release. =)
--
Tim Moloney
ManTech Real-time Systems Laboratory
2015 Cattlemen Road \ /
Sarasota, FL 34232 .________\(O)/________.
(941) 377-6775 x208 ' ' O(.)O ' '
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: CVS2SVN - Thoughts for RPMs?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 09:47:08AM -0400, Tim Moloney wrote:
> David Summers wrote:
> > I still haven't gotten cvs2svn to work yet but it compiles great. Does it
> > require the new apache-2.0.42 to work?
cvs2svn doesn't use Apache in any way, so you don't even need it installed.
All that is necessary for cvs2svn is the FS and REPOS libraries, and the
SWIG bindings. (plus the various python scripts, of course)
> > I'm getting ready to commit my changes to the Subversion RPMs and wanted
> > to get people's thoughts on cvs2svn/swig, etc., requirements.
> >
> > Right now I've got the Subversion RPM building another binary package
> > called subversion-cvs2svn which depends on the swig RPMs. Is that OK? Or
> > would people (users) rather not have another RPM package and just add
> > another dependency to the base Subversion RPM?
Separate RPM for the SWIG bindings. If that svn-swig RPM also includes
cvs2svn, then all righty. Maybe install some of the examples somewhere, too?
>...
> I noticed that you break out the apr/apr-util libraries into
> separate RPMs. This is fine if you want to install apr/apr-util
> but not httpd. I wouldn't expect many applications like this so
> I wouldn't break out the libapr* RPMs the way that you do.
I absolutely would do this. APR(UTIL) and httpd are versioned independently
and have their own release cycles. To me, that implies distinct RPMs.
Over time, I hope that we'll see more users of APR(UTIL), so having a
distinct RPM will also be a Good Thing(tm).
>...
> Regardless, I appreciate your efforts to make it easier for
> people to install and use Subversion.
Me too!
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: CVS2SVN - Thoughts for RPMs?
Posted by Brian Huddleston <br...@huddleston.net>.
>
> > If you follow the procedures described in an earlier message
> > (http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgId=189581)
> > you can create RPMs that are one for one replacements for the
> > current Red Hat RPMs (allowing for the apache to httpd name
> > change). People may find this easier and less confusing to
> > install into a stock Red Hat 7.x system.
>
> I wanted to make it possible to leave the current Apache 1.3.X in the
> RedHat 7.X series and yet make it possible to use the Subversion server on
> those machines also.
>
Which is an *extremely* nice feature BTW. :-)
(Since our AuthPam doesn't work under 2.0 and is necessary to keep our
Intranet manageable.)
Just wanted to thank David for giving me the tools to keep a finger on the
pulse of Subversion without burning a lot of time.
-Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: CVS2SVN - Thoughts for RPMs?
Posted by David Summers <da...@summersoft.fay.ar.us>.
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Tim Moloney wrote:
> David Summers wrote:
>
> > I still haven't gotten cvs2svn to work yet but it compiles great. Does it
> > require the new apache-2.0.42 to work?
> >
> > I'm getting ready to commit my changes to the Subversion RPMs and wanted
> > to get people's thoughts on cvs2svn/swig, etc., requirements.
> >
> > Right now I've got the Subversion RPM building another binary package
> > called subversion-cvs2svn which depends on the swig RPMs. Is that OK? Or
> > would people (users) rather not have another RPM package and just add
> > another dependency to the base Subversion RPM?
>
> I don't have any suggestions for the swig stuff since I don't
> have any experience with it but...
>
> I noticed that you break out the apr/apr-util libraries into
> separate RPMs. This is fine if you want to install apr/apr-util
> but not httpd. I wouldn't expect many applications like this so
> I wouldn't break out the libapr* RPMs the way that you do.
I did that so that people could install the subversion client without
having to install the Apache server.
I think that RedHat 8.0 will finally use the new Apache 2.X series so then
I should not have to maintain the Apache server RPMS to get it to work
with Subversion.
> If you follow the procedures described in an earlier message
> (http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgId=189581)
> you can create RPMs that are one for one replacements for the
> current Red Hat RPMs (allowing for the apache to httpd name
> change). People may find this easier and less confusing to
> install into a stock Red Hat 7.x system.
I wanted to make it possible to leave the current Apache 1.3.X in the
RedHat 7.X series and yet make it possible to use the Subversion server on
those machines also.
> Regardless, I appreciate your efforts to make it easier for
> people to install and use Subversion.
>
>
Thanks. I hope people can use it.
--
David Wayne Summers "Linux: Because reboots are for 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: CVS2SVN - Thoughts for RPMs?
Posted by Tim Moloney <mo...@mrsl.com>.
David Summers wrote:
> I still haven't gotten cvs2svn to work yet but it compiles great. Does it
> require the new apache-2.0.42 to work?
>
> I'm getting ready to commit my changes to the Subversion RPMs and wanted
> to get people's thoughts on cvs2svn/swig, etc., requirements.
>
> Right now I've got the Subversion RPM building another binary package
> called subversion-cvs2svn which depends on the swig RPMs. Is that OK? Or
> would people (users) rather not have another RPM package and just add
> another dependency to the base Subversion RPM?
I don't have any suggestions for the swig stuff since I don't
have any experience with it but...
I noticed that you break out the apr/apr-util libraries into
separate RPMs. This is fine if you want to install apr/apr-util
but not httpd. I wouldn't expect many applications like this so
I wouldn't break out the libapr* RPMs the way that you do.
If you follow the procedures described in an earlier message
(http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgId=189581)
you can create RPMs that are one for one replacements for the
current Red Hat RPMs (allowing for the apache to httpd name
change). People may find this easier and less confusing to
install into a stock Red Hat 7.x system.
Regardless, I appreciate your efforts to make it easier for
people to install and use Subversion.
--
Tim Moloney
ManTech Real-time Systems Laboratory
2015 Cattlemen Road \ /
Sarasota, FL 34232 .________\(O)/________.
(941) 377-6775 x208 ' ' O(.)O ' '
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: CVS2SVN - Thoughts for RPMs?
Posted by cm...@collab.net.
"Brent R. Matzelle" <bm...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Right now I've got the Subversion RPM building another binary
> > package
> > called subversion-cvs2svn which depends on the swig RPMs. Is that
> > OK? Or
> > would people (users) rather not have another RPM package and just
> > add
> > another dependency to the base Subversion RPM?
>
> I wouldn't want SWIG as a dependency for Subversion so I'd say keep
> it as a separate package.
Yeah, that discussion came up earlier (with respect to whether or not
we should lose svnlook and svnadmin and just have SWIGpy scripts), and
folks seemed to not want YASD (Yet Another Subversion Dependency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: CVS2SVN - Thoughts for RPMs?
Posted by "Brent R. Matzelle" <bm...@yahoo.com>.
--- David Summers <da...@summersoft.fay.ar.us> wrote:
>
> I still haven't gotten cvs2svn to work yet but it compiles great.
> Does it
> require the new apache-2.0.42 to work?
>
> I'm getting ready to commit my changes to the Subversion RPMs and
> wanted
> to get people's thoughts on cvs2svn/swig, etc., requirements.
>
> Right now I've got the Subversion RPM building another binary
> package
> called subversion-cvs2svn which depends on the swig RPMs. Is that
> OK? Or
> would people (users) rather not have another RPM package and just
> add
> another dependency to the base Subversion RPM?
I wouldn't want SWIG as a dependency for Subversion so I'd say keep
it as a separate package.
Brent.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org