You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com> on 2005/08/30 22:06:33 UTC
[RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
In the pre-1.0 era, we distributed full neon and APR sources with
Subversion. The reason being that most people had to build from source and
we didn't want them to have to search for some or all of subversion's
dependencies.
In the current post 1.2 era, most of our users install one of the binary
packages either provided from the svn homepage or by packagers. In most
cases packagers will be bound to system provided versions of neon and APR.
Remains only a very limited group building from source.
I'd like to break with the pre-1.0 era for the distribution tarball and
start shipping only the Subversion sources.
bye,
Erik.
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On August 31, 2005 6:53:22 PM -0500 Ben Collins-Sussman
<su...@collab.net> wrote:
> I'm sort of confused... I'm like Justin, in that sure, whenever I get a
> new box, I "bootstrap" by building everything from scratch. But it's a
> one-time thing, right? You only have to hunt down the dependencies and
> install them exactly once. After that, subsequent upgrades of
> subversion keep on using the same dependencies; the ones in the
> extra-large tarball are either useless, ignored, or contradict what you
> already have installed...?
For me, it's two phases: 1) bootstrap with the current SVN release
including all bundled dependencies; 2) then replace all of the dependencies
and Subversion itself with current copies (i.e. trunk).
So, I have two sets of dirs: subversion-1.2.3 and
svn-trunk/apr-trunk/neon-trunk.
Once svn is installed, I don't care about the dependencies as I'll use the
current versions; but to bootstrap, it'd be annoying as I don't really want
to be compile every dependency twice - to fetch the latest release
independently and then upgrade everything again to trunk after I get SVN
installed. *shrug* -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Jim Correia <ji...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 31, 2005, at 7:53 PM, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2005, at 6:48 PM, Jim Correia wrote:
>
>> I'd prefer that the full distro with required dependencies is kept
>> as well. It makes building the source package myself so much
>> easier than having to track down the dependencies (and figure out
>> which versions of each I should be using.)
>
> I'm sort of confused... I'm like Justin, in that sure, whenever I
> get a new box, I "bootstrap" by building everything from scratch.
> But it's a one-time thing, right? You only have to hunt down the
> dependencies and install them exactly once. After that, subsequent
> upgrades of subversion keep on using the same dependencies; the
> ones in the extra-large tarball are either useless, ignored, or
> contradict what you already have installed...?
Unlike Justin, I don't work on Apache, or have any other software
that uses APR, neon, etc. I don't even build or install them, so I
always uses the versions bundled with subversion.
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net>.
On Aug 31, 2005, at 6:48 PM, Jim Correia wrote:
>
>
>> I'd be fine with our 'standard' 1.3 distro not having the
>> dependencies in it; but I'd prefer still having a 'full'
>> distribution that includes those dependencies.
>>
>
> I'd prefer that the full distro with required dependencies is kept
> as well. It makes building the source package myself so much easier
> than having to track down the dependencies (and figure out which
> versions of each I should be using.)
I'm sort of confused... I'm like Justin, in that sure, whenever I get
a new box, I "bootstrap" by building everything from scratch. But
it's a one-time thing, right? You only have to hunt down the
dependencies and install them exactly once. After that, subsequent
upgrades of subversion keep on using the same dependencies; the ones
in the extra-large tarball are either useless, ignored, or contradict
what you already have installed...?
--
www.collab.net <> CollabNet | Distributed Development On Demand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Jim Correia <ji...@pobox.com>.
On Aug 31, 2005, at 3:30 PM, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> Sorry we didn't speak up earlier, but kfogel and I are both very
> much +1 on slimming down the release. The early days of "everyone
> builds from source" are over. Pretty much all users use binaries
> now. Those who do build from source are either developers or
> packagers, both of which are already plenty familiar with svn's
> external dependencies. Those groups, I'm sure, are already passing
> complex arguments to our ./configure.
Well I'm a non-subversion developer who always builds from source.
The binary packages for Mac OS X all have something wrong with them
which prevent me from using them (yes, I'm picky.) :-)
They either build too much, install into a weird location, build the
dynamic version, don't pass the correct flags to configure so the man
pages end up in the right place, etc.
I find it is easier to build my own static binaries.
On Aug 31, 2005, at 5:57 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I'd be fine with our 'standard' 1.3 distro not having the
> dependencies in it; but I'd prefer still having a 'full'
> distribution that includes those dependencies.
I'd prefer that the full distro with required dependencies is kept as
well. It makes building the source package myself so much easier than
having to track down the dependencies (and figure out which versions
of each I should be using.)
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
--On August 30, 2005 6:51:13 PM -0400 Michael Sinz <Mi...@sinz.org>
wrote:
> Maybe there would need to be source packages that are known to work with
> SVN
> available somewhere such that it does not get into a large tree of
> dependancy
> checking and validation.
+1.
Whenever I 'bootstrap' a new box, I just fetch the latest SVN tarball and
then use that to fetch whatever code I need. If I had to fetch APR,
APR-util, and neon tarballs as well - boy, that'd be much more painful.
I'd be fine with our 'standard' 1.3 distro not having the dependencies in
it; but I'd prefer still having a 'full' distribution that includes those
dependencies. Not every OS people use come with Subversion. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Michael Sinz <Mi...@sinz.org>.
Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>
> In the pre-1.0 era, we distributed full neon and APR sources with
> Subversion. The reason being that most people had to build from source
> and we didn't want them to have to search for some or all of
> subversion's dependencies.
>
> In the current post 1.2 era, most of our users install one of the binary
> packages either provided from the svn homepage or by packagers. In most
> cases packagers will be bound to system provided versions of neon and
> APR. Remains only a very limited group building from source.
>
> I'd like to break with the pre-1.0 era for the distribution tarball and
> start shipping only the Subversion sources.
Well, one thing I have liked is that I can have someone build subversion
without needing to be sure that APR and neon are up to date (or existing)
on their target servers. This has been important for some of my clients as
they have standardized on RedHat AS 2.1 (many have still not switched to AS 3.0)
and thus the need to build the complete package. (And, Apache 2.0.x too,
for http access)
Maybe there would need to be source packages that are known to work with SVN
available somewhere such that it does not get into a large tree of dependancy
checking and validation.
Otherwise, I would love to see the SVN distribution get slimmer.
BTW - is this really a bad thing to have known good library sources available
in case the user does not have them? Would the support issues not be more
trouble than the extra size/bandwidth the libraries add to the tarball?
--
Michael Sinz Technology and Engineering Director/Consultant
"Starting Startups" mailto:michael.sinz@sinz.org
My place on the web http://www.sinz.org/Michael.Sinz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Mark Phippard wrote:
>Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> wrote on 08/31/2005 03:35:27 PM:
>
>
>>>Sorry we didn't speak up earlier, but kfogel and I are both very much
>>>+1 on slimming down the release. The early days of "everyone builds
>>>from source" are over. Pretty much all users use binaries now.
>>>Those who do build from source are either developers or packagers,
>>>both of which are already plenty familiar with svn's external
>>>dependencies. Those groups, I'm sure, are already passing complex
>>>arguments to our ./configure.
>>>
>>>
>>I agree. In that case, I don't think we have to wait for 1.4 to rip apr
>>and neon out.
>>
>>
>
>Does this mean brane is "free" to post Win32 builds with the latest Neon
>now? I think a lot of people have wanted that for a variety of reasons.
>
>
I don't see how that question is relevant to this discussion. :)
If someone tweaks the Windows build generator to detect the neon version
and set SVN_NEON_0_25, I'll be happy to use the latest 0.25.x version
for the next binary distro.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net>.
On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:48 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>
> Thanks. I didn't mean to cloud the discussion. What I was kind of
> getting at is that by including a specific version in the tarball/zip
> there is an implied "blessed" version.
This is one of the arguments for not including specific versions of
dependent libraries in the tarball, I think... people read too much
into it. For example, we've been including apr and apr-util 0.9.x in
our release tarballs for years, but Subversion works just fine
against apr 1.0 or 1.1!
This means that INSTALL (and our build scripts) become the only
source of "recommended" dependent library versions.
--
www.collab.net <> CollabNet | Distributed Development On Demand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Mark Phippard <Ma...@softlanding.com>.
Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net> wrote on 08/31/2005 03:43:09 PM:
>
> On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:39 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree. In that case, I don't think we have to wait for 1.4 to
> >> rip apr
> >> and neon out.
> >>
> >
> > Does this mean brane is "free" to post Win32 builds with the latest
> > Neon
> > now? I think a lot of people have wanted that for a variety of
> > reasons.
>
> I thought the issue was that svn 1.2 only supports neon 0.24, whereas
> trunk (1.3) now supports either 0.24 or 0.25. I don't see why every
> OS shouldn't use neon 0.25 with svn 1.3, assuming it's available; we
> can simply recommend that in our INSTALL file and spread the word to
> packagers.
Thanks. I didn't mean to cloud the discussion. What I was kind of
getting at is that by including a specific version in the tarball/zip
there is an implied "blessed" version. So, not including a specific
version is good or bad depending on how you feel about that going away.
Personally, it seems like a good thing.
Mark
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net>.
On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:39 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>>
>> I agree. In that case, I don't think we have to wait for 1.4 to
>> rip apr
>> and neon out.
>>
>
> Does this mean brane is "free" to post Win32 builds with the latest
> Neon
> now? I think a lot of people have wanted that for a variety of
> reasons.
I thought the issue was that svn 1.2 only supports neon 0.24, whereas
trunk (1.3) now supports either 0.24 or 0.25. I don't see why every
OS shouldn't use neon 0.25 with svn 1.3, assuming it's available; we
can simply recommend that in our INSTALL file and spread the word to
packagers.
--
www.collab.net <> CollabNet | Distributed Development On Demand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Mark Phippard <Ma...@softlanding.com>.
Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> wrote on 08/31/2005 03:35:27 PM:
> > Sorry we didn't speak up earlier, but kfogel and I are both very much
> > +1 on slimming down the release. The early days of "everyone builds
> > from source" are over. Pretty much all users use binaries now.
> > Those who do build from source are either developers or packagers,
> > both of which are already plenty familiar with svn's external
> > dependencies. Those groups, I'm sure, are already passing complex
> > arguments to our ./configure.
>
> I agree. In that case, I don't think we have to wait for 1.4 to rip apr
> and neon out.
Does this mean brane is "free" to post Win32 builds with the latest Neon
now? I think a lot of people have wanted that for a variety of reasons.
Mark
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
> On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:12 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I'd like to break with the pre-1.0 era for the distribution tarball
>>> and start shipping only the Subversion sources.
>>>
>>
>> So what do we do about the Windows source distro? There are _no_
>> binary packages of APR et al. for Windows, not to mention that the
>> Windows build requires APR sources.
>>
>
> My feeling is that it's such a tremendously complex process to build
> Subversion on Windows anyway, that including apr/apr-util/neon in the
> .zip isn't going to make a bit a difference. People building on
> windows *already* need to fetch a whole bunch of dependencies, and
> often that includes all of apache. A smaller .zip is akin to
> "spitting in the ocean".
>
> Sorry we didn't speak up earlier, but kfogel and I are both very much
> +1 on slimming down the release. The early days of "everyone builds
> from source" are over. Pretty much all users use binaries now.
> Those who do build from source are either developers or packagers,
> both of which are already plenty familiar with svn's external
> dependencies. Those groups, I'm sure, are already passing complex
> arguments to our ./configure.
I agree. In that case, I don't think we have to wait for 1.4 to rip apr
and neon out.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net>.
On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:12 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to break with the pre-1.0 era for the distribution
>> tarball and start shipping only the Subversion sources.
>>
>
> So what do we do about the Windows source distro? There are _no_
> binary packages of APR et al. for Windows, not to mention that the
> Windows build requires APR sources.
>
My feeling is that it's such a tremendously complex process to build
Subversion on Windows anyway, that including apr/apr-util/neon in
the .zip isn't going to make a bit a difference. People building on
windows *already* need to fetch a whole bunch of dependencies, and
often that includes all of apache. A smaller .zip is akin to
"spitting in the ocean".
Sorry we didn't speak up earlier, but kfogel and I are both very much
+1 on slimming down the release. The early days of "everyone builds
from source" are over. Pretty much all users use binaries now.
Those who do build from source are either developers or packagers,
both of which are already plenty familiar with svn's external
dependencies. Those groups, I'm sure, are already passing complex
arguments to our ./configure.
--
www.collab.net <> CollabNet | Distributed Development On Demand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>
> In the pre-1.0 era, we distributed full neon and APR sources with
> Subversion. The reason being that most people had to build from
> source and we didn't want them to have to search for some or all of
> subversion's dependencies.
>
> In the current post 1.2 era, most of our users install one of the
> binary packages either provided from the svn homepage or by
> packagers. In most cases packagers will be bound to system provided
> versions of neon and APR. Remains only a very limited group building
> from source.
>
> I'd like to break with the pre-1.0 era for the distribution tarball
> and start shipping only the Subversion sources.
So what do we do about the Windows source distro? There are _no_ binary
packages of APR et al. for Windows, not to mention that the Windows
build requires APR sources.
Personally I don't give a damn, I never use the packages in the distro
when I build the binaries.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, [UTF-8] Branko �^Libej wrote:
>
>
>
>>Michael Sweet wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hmm, I've successfully compiled Subversion 1.0 through 1.2.1 on all
>>>of our build systems, and few of them have libxml2, expat, zlib, or
>>>openssl installed...
>>>
>>>
>>That just means that you're not using ra_dav since it depends on libxml
>>or expat. ZLib an OpenSSL are completely optional.
>>
>>
>>
>AFAIK, libsvn_subr depends on expat. I'd be impressed if someone used
>libsvn_wc without an XML parser:-) That's included in apr-util, though.
>
>
Ugh. Right. Shoot me.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by "Peter N. Lundblad" <pe...@famlundblad.se>.
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, [UTF-8] Branko �^Libej wrote:
> Michael Sweet wrote:
>
> > Hmm, I've successfully compiled Subversion 1.0 through 1.2.1 on all
> > of our build systems, and few of them have libxml2, expat, zlib, or
> > openssl installed...
>
> That just means that you're not using ra_dav since it depends on libxml
> or expat. ZLib an OpenSSL are completely optional.
>
AFAIK, libsvn_subr depends on expat. I'd be impressed if someone used
libsvn_wc without an XML parser:-) That's included in apr-util, though.
Thanks,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Michael Sweet wrote:
> Hmm, I've successfully compiled Subversion 1.0 through 1.2.1 on all
> of our build systems, and few of them have libxml2, expat, zlib, or
> openssl installed...
That just means that you're not using ra_dav since it depends on libxml
or expat. ZLib an OpenSSL are completely optional.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Michael Sweet <mi...@easysw.com>.
Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> On 8/31/05, Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net> wrote:
>
>>Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>>
>>>In the pre-1.0 era, we distributed full neon and APR sources with
>>>Subversion. The reason being that most people had to build from source and
>>>we didn't want them to have to search for some or all of subversion's
>>>dependencies.
>>>
>>>In the current post 1.2 era, most of our users install one of the binary
>>>packages either provided from the svn homepage or by packagers. In most
>>>cases packagers will be bound to system provided versions of neon and APR.
>>>Remains only a very limited group building from source.
>>>
>>>I'd like to break with the pre-1.0 era for the distribution tarball and
>>>start shipping only the Subversion sources.
>>
>>IIRC, currently the configury prefers bundled {neon,apr,apr-util} sources to
>>system-installed versions of the libraries at the moment.
>>
>>Maybe a staged change would be better?:
>>1.3.x: Have ./configure prefer system libs to bundled source.
>>1.4.x: Don't bundle the source.
>
>
> Hmm. That seems like a nice migration path. Do you expect a lot of
> trouble if we switched cold turkey? I'd like to give that (switching
> cold turkey) a try in 1.3.0-RC1, because that's part of what the RC's
> are for, right?
>
> To address Michael Sweet's point: we don't provide libxml2, expat,
> zlib, openssl or any of our other dependencies. Providing APR
> 0.9.(5|6) with Subversion kind of implies that that's the required
> version to use, while in fact it's only the minimum.
Hmm, I've successfully compiled Subversion 1.0 through 1.2.1 on all
of our build systems, and few of them have libxml2, expat, zlib, or
openssl installed...
--
______________________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike at easysw dot com
Internet Printing and Publishing Software http://www.easysw.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com>.
On 8/31/05, Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net> wrote:
> Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> > In the pre-1.0 era, we distributed full neon and APR sources with
> > Subversion. The reason being that most people had to build from source and
> > we didn't want them to have to search for some or all of subversion's
> > dependencies.
> >
> > In the current post 1.2 era, most of our users install one of the binary
> > packages either provided from the svn homepage or by packagers. In most
> > cases packagers will be bound to system provided versions of neon and APR.
> > Remains only a very limited group building from source.
> >
> > I'd like to break with the pre-1.0 era for the distribution tarball and
> > start shipping only the Subversion sources.
>
> IIRC, currently the configury prefers bundled {neon,apr,apr-util} sources to
> system-installed versions of the libraries at the moment.
>
> Maybe a staged change would be better?:
> 1.3.x: Have ./configure prefer system libs to bundled source.
> 1.4.x: Don't bundle the source.
Hmm. That seems like a nice migration path. Do you expect a lot of
trouble if we switched cold turkey? I'd like to give that (switching
cold turkey) a try in 1.3.0-RC1, because that's part of what the RC's
are for, right?
To address Michael Sweet's point: we don't provide libxml2, expat,
zlib, openssl or any of our other dependencies. Providing APR
0.9.(5|6) with Subversion kind of implies that that's the required
version to use, while in fact it's only the minimum.
bye,
Erik.
PS: Our current 0.9.5 minimum is even based on the assumption people
are building Apache too. If you don't, you can link with APR 0.9.4 and
maybe even earlier [if memory serves me right; I'll test this claim
tonight].
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [RFC] Subversion 1.3 distribution tar slimmer?
Posted by Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net>.
Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> In the pre-1.0 era, we distributed full neon and APR sources with
> Subversion. The reason being that most people had to build from source and
> we didn't want them to have to search for some or all of subversion's
> dependencies.
>
> In the current post 1.2 era, most of our users install one of the binary
> packages either provided from the svn homepage or by packagers. In most
> cases packagers will be bound to system provided versions of neon and APR.
> Remains only a very limited group building from source.
>
> I'd like to break with the pre-1.0 era for the distribution tarball and
> start shipping only the Subversion sources.
IIRC, currently the configury prefers bundled {neon,apr,apr-util} sources to
system-installed versions of the libraries at the moment.
Maybe a staged change would be better?:
1.3.x: Have ./configure prefer system libs to bundled source.
1.4.x: Don't bundle the source.
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org