You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <ar...@gmail.com> on 2008/09/06 22:48:35 UTC
[RFC] [PATCH] Raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27
I would like to suggest to raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27.
When Subversion 1.6 is released, Neon 0.26 will be very old and rather
nobody will try to use Subversion 1.6 with such old versions of Neon.
(r21480 removed support for Neon 0.24.)
[[[
Raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27.
* configure.ac
(NEON_ALLOWED_LIST): Delete 0.25.* and 0.26.* from the list.
* build/ac-macros/neon.m4
(SVN_LIB_NEON, SVN_NEON_CONFIG): Don't define SVN_NEON_0_26 and
SVN_NEON_0_27.
* build/generator/gen_win.py
(GeneratorBase.parse_options): Set self.neon_ver to 27000.
(WinGeneratorBase.get_win_defines): Don't define SVN_NEON_0_26 and
SVN_NEON_0_27.
(WinGeneratorBase._find_neon): Print a warning when Neon older than 0.27.0
is found.
* subversion/libsvn_ra_neon/session.c
(get_server_settings, ra_neon_neonprogress, svn_ra_neon__open):
* subversion/libsvn_ra_neon/util.c
(generate_error):
* subversion/libsvn_subr/config_file.c
(svn_config_ensure): Make SVN_NEON_0_2[67] part unconditional. Delete
!SVN_NEON_0_2[67] part.
* INSTALL
(Dependencies in Detail, Building the Latest Source under Windows): Update.
]]]
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27
Posted by Blair Zajac <bl...@orcaware.com>.
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2008-09-08 00:14:46 Blair Zajac napisał(a):
>> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>>> 2008-09-07 03:52:40 Blair Zajac napisał(a):
>>>> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>>>>> I would like to suggest to raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27.
>>>>> When Subversion 1.6 is released, Neon 0.26 will be very old and rather
>>>>> nobody will try to use Subversion 1.6 with such old versions of Neon.
>>>>> (r21480 removed support for Neon 0.24.)
>>>> I don't see the urgency in removing code
>>> OK. So what do you think about removing support only for Neon 0.25?
>>> Neon 0.26.0 was released about 30 months ago.
>>>
>>> r21480 removed support for Neon 0.24 about 17 months after the release of
>>> Neon 0.25.0.
>>>
>>>> recent bump to Python 2.4
>> Sorry, should have been more clear. Python 2.4 for some of our scripts and tool.
>>
>> Taking a step back, I don't see why we need to update any of the dependencies
>> that you've supplied patches for:
>>
>> 1) Bash
>
> I didn't know that old versions of BASH don't support '+='.
>
>> 2) Python
>
> Fortunately there is a sufficient reason to update Python dependency:
>
> Calls to os.popen* and popen2.* cause deprecation warnings.
> These calls should be replaced with appropriate calls to subprocess.*.
A warning that something is deprecated isn't sufficient reason to bump the
required version. RHEL4/Centos 4 has Python 2.3 on it and is still in
production in many places. For example at Sony Imageworks, they have over 4,000
systems with Centos 4.x and and upgrading an entire facility won't happen for
six months to a year, and yet we want to run svn 1.5 or 1.6.
Blair
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27
Posted by Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <ar...@gmail.com>.
2008-09-08 00:14:46 Blair Zajac napisał(a):
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > 2008-09-07 03:52:40 Blair Zajac napisał(a):
> >> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> >>> I would like to suggest to raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27.
> >>> When Subversion 1.6 is released, Neon 0.26 will be very old and rather
> >>> nobody will try to use Subversion 1.6 with such old versions of Neon.
> >>> (r21480 removed support for Neon 0.24.)
> >> I don't see the urgency in removing code
> >
> > OK. So what do you think about removing support only for Neon 0.25?
> > Neon 0.26.0 was released about 30 months ago.
> >
> > r21480 removed support for Neon 0.24 about 17 months after the release of
> > Neon 0.25.0.
> >
> >> recent bump to Python 2.4
>
> Sorry, should have been more clear. Python 2.4 for some of our scripts and tool.
>
> Taking a step back, I don't see why we need to update any of the dependencies
> that you've supplied patches for:
>
> 1) Bash
I didn't know that old versions of BASH don't support '+='.
> 2) Python
Fortunately there is a sufficient reason to update Python dependency:
Calls to os.popen* and popen2.* cause deprecation warnings.
These calls should be replaced with appropriate calls to subprocess.*.
For example, running autogen.sh causes deprecation warning in
build/generator/util/executable.py:
$ ./autogen.sh
buildcheck: checking installation...
buildcheck: autoconf version 2.62 (ok)
buildcheck: autoheader version 2.62 (ok)
buildcheck: libtool version 2.2.4 (ok)
Copying libtool helper: /usr/share/aclocal/libtool.m4
Copying libtool helper: /usr/share/aclocal/ltoptions.m4
Copying libtool helper: /usr/share/aclocal/ltsugar.m4
Copying libtool helper: /usr/share/aclocal/ltversion.m4
Copying libtool helper: /usr/share/aclocal/lt~obsolete.m4
Creating build-outputs.mk...
build/generator/util/executable.py:28: DeprecationWarning: os.popen4 is deprecated. Use the subprocess module.
stdin, stdout = os.popen4(cmd)
Creating svn_private_config.h.in...
Creating configure...
You can run ./configure now.
Running autogen.sh implies you are a maintainer. You may prefer
to run configure in one of the following ways:
./configure --enable-maintainer-mode
./configure --disable-shared
./configure --enable-maintainer-mode --disable-shared
Note: If you wish to run a Subversion HTTP server, you will need
Apache 2.x. See the INSTALL file for details.
$
subprocess module [1] is available in Python >=2.4.
subprocess module has also several other advantages.
[1] http://docs.python.org/dev/library/subprocess.html
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27
Posted by Blair Zajac <bl...@orcaware.com>.
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 03:14:46PM -0700, Blair Zajac wrote:
>> There's really nothing to gain from doing so except for limiting the systems
>> that svn can install on. I don't see the point. You never know when somebody
>> has some ancient system that they want to install svn on. It just makes it more
>> work then for somebody to get it installed.
>
> +1
>
> It's nice when things still work on old boxes.
>
> I'd argue not removing existing support for third party software
> from Subversion unless:
>
> 1) It obviously becomes too much of a maintenance burden for some reason.
> 2) We need to upgrade the dependencies because old versions don't
> have required features.
+1 on these.
Blair
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27
Posted by Senthil Kumaran S <se...@collab.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> It's nice when things still work on old boxes.
>
> I'd argue not removing existing support for third party software
> from Subversion unless:
>
> 1) It obviously becomes too much of a maintenance burden for some reason.
> 2) We need to upgrade the dependencies because old versions don't
> have required features.
>
> We should not force our users into dependency hell for no good reasons.
I perfectly agree with this. If we have neon 0.23 working with subversion
1.5/1.6 (with all the features required from neon) then we need to have some
mechanism which says neon 0.23 or greater is supported. We should not restrict
the user by saying the supported versions of neon are 0.xx, 0.xy only, ie.,
restricting the user with 0.27 and 0.28 or something like that. IMHO, this
helps the user to compile subversion with whatever old dependencies they have
(of course which works well).
Thank You.
- --
Senthil Kumaran S
http://www.stylesen.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIx2nQ9o1G+2zNQDgRAtfjAKCTc43JB4HHeseyvWRuKwl2WoTAtgCgtw2f
SyhypdEE/X1nV3ejQKlTyZk=
=Tt3B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27
Posted by John Szakmeister <jo...@szakmeister.net>.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 03:14:46PM -0700, Blair Zajac wrote:
>> There's really nothing to gain from doing so except for limiting the systems
>> that svn can install on. I don't see the point. You never know when somebody
>> has some ancient system that they want to install svn on. It just makes it more
>> work then for somebody to get it installed.
>
> +1
>
> It's nice when things still work on old boxes.
>
> I'd argue not removing existing support for third party software
> from Subversion unless:
>
> 1) It obviously becomes too much of a maintenance burden for some reason.
> 2) We need to upgrade the dependencies because old versions don't
> have required features.
or,
3) If the library is known to cause corruption.
This was the case with APR some time back.
-John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 03:14:46PM -0700, Blair Zajac wrote:
> There's really nothing to gain from doing so except for limiting the systems
> that svn can install on. I don't see the point. You never know when somebody
> has some ancient system that they want to install svn on. It just makes it more
> work then for somebody to get it installed.
+1
It's nice when things still work on old boxes.
I'd argue not removing existing support for third party software
from Subversion unless:
1) It obviously becomes too much of a maintenance burden for some reason.
2) We need to upgrade the dependencies because old versions don't
have required features.
We should not force our users into dependency hell for no good reasons.
Related story (but not the exact same situation):
In BSD-land, you rarely even find *binaries* compiled on old
versions that do not run anymore. E.g. the CM3 Modula3 compiler
was originally ported to FreeBSD 4.x and still compiles and runs
on FreeBSD 7.x without modification.
In the same time frame, some Linux distros went as far as completely
removing support for static linking(!) and encrypted the stack frame
pointer as a security measure, breaking binary compatibility.
The latter can be turned off via an environment var, but users have
to set that, else any Modula3 program will crash.
I know that there are good reasons for these two changes, but they
caused me a lot of work when I was creating binaries for the CM3 5.4
release. Total PITA.
Having such roadblocks in the way when upgrading Subversion can be a
similar pain. And if such roadblocks are there for no good reasons,
people will complain, the changes will have to be reverted, and the
work of updating the dependencies will have been done in vain.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27
Posted by Blair Zajac <bl...@orcaware.com>.
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2008-09-07 03:52:40 Blair Zajac napisał(a):
>> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>>> I would like to suggest to raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27.
>>> When Subversion 1.6 is released, Neon 0.26 will be very old and rather
>>> nobody will try to use Subversion 1.6 with such old versions of Neon.
>>> (r21480 removed support for Neon 0.24.)
>> I don't see the urgency in removing code
>
> OK. So what do you think about removing support only for Neon 0.25?
> Neon 0.26.0 was released about 30 months ago.
>
> r21480 removed support for Neon 0.24 about 17 months after the release of
> Neon 0.25.0.
>
>> recent bump to Python 2.4
Sorry, should have been more clear. Python 2.4 for some of our scripts and tool.
Taking a step back, I don't see why we need to update any of the dependencies
that you've supplied patches for:
1) Bash
2) Python
3) Neon
There's really nothing to gain from doing so except for limiting the systems
that svn can install on. I don't see the point. You never know when somebody
has some ancient system that they want to install svn on. It just makes it more
work then for somebody to get it installed.
I still receive the odd request to install svn on an extremely old OS and the
more dependencies, the more work.
If there's some new feature we need from a newer version of a dependency, then
sure, bump it, but otherwise, this appears to me as gratuitous upgrading.
Blair
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27
Posted by Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <ar...@gmail.com>.
2008-09-07 03:52:40 Blair Zajac napisał(a):
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > I would like to suggest to raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27.
> > When Subversion 1.6 is released, Neon 0.26 will be very old and rather
> > nobody will try to use Subversion 1.6 with such old versions of Neon.
> > (r21480 removed support for Neon 0.24.)
>
> I don't see the urgency in removing code
OK. So what do you think about removing support only for Neon 0.25?
Neon 0.26.0 was released about 30 months ago.
r21480 removed support for Neon 0.24 about 17 months after the release of
Neon 0.25.0.
> recent bump to Python 2.4
It seems to not be documented.
What do you think about the attached patch?
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27
Posted by Blair Zajac <bl...@orcaware.com>.
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> I would like to suggest to raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27.
> When Subversion 1.6 is released, Neon 0.26 will be very old and rather
> nobody will try to use Subversion 1.6 with such old versions of Neon.
> (r21480 removed support for Neon 0.24.)
I don't see the urgency in removing code that works and it sounds presumptuous
to say who will try to do what with svn 1.6.
There's reasons to bump a requirement to a newer version to pick up a new
feature that makes it simpler, such as a recent bump to Python 2.4, but in this
case, we're not doing that.
Blair
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27
Posted by Peter Samuelson <pe...@p12n.org>.
[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]
> I would like to suggest to raise minimal required version of Neon to 0.27.
I have two comments on this.
1) Most of the cruft removal is related to SVN_NEON_0_26, not 0_27.
Therefore it may be better to just remove support for 0.25, rather
than both 0.25 and 0.26. I note that current Debian stable (4.0)
still uses 0.26. Yes, we have a well-earned reputation for
infrequent stable releases, but a lot of people use it. (Also,
Debian 5.0 is scheduled for Real Soon Now, but I expect there will
be people who want to deploy 1.6.0 on Debian 4.0.)
2) The neon API and code has stabilized enough over the years that we
can probably drop the exact version matching of NEON_ALLOWED_LIST.
This has always been a pain, the list gets outdated every time Joe
pushes out 0.xx.y+1, and we only list 0.xx.0 to 0.xx.y.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/