You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by kf...@collab.net on 2003/11/04 14:55:45 UTC

Re: svn rev 7629: FAIL (i386-unknown-freebsdelf5.0 shared)

> /home/brane/svn/obj-sh/apr/.libs/libapr-1.so: undefined reference to `apr_random_after_fork'
> *** Error code 1
> 
> Stop in /home/brane/svn/obj-sh.
> Complete log saved in /home/brane/svn/LOG_svn_build_shared.7629.failed
> FAIL: build

Is it because not updated to the APR/APU in Apache 2.0.48?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: svn rev 7629: FAIL (i386-unknown-freebsdelf5.0 shared)

Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.

--On Wednesday, November 05, 2003 13:16:58 -0600 Ben Collins-Sussman 
<su...@collab.net> wrote:

> I think brane's nightly-build system is flawed here.  I really don't
> like the fact that it builds against APR HEAD.

Some people could run their nightly builds against APR HEAD and others can 
test against APR 0.9.x.

I'm not clear why this is such a big deal.  I think there is substantial 
value in having automated regression tests against APR HEAD.  -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: svn rev 7629: FAIL (i386-unknown-freebsdelf5.0 shared)

Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.

Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:

>On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 13:10, Greg Stein wrote:
>  
>
>>On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 06:00:26PM +0100, brane@xbc.nu wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>...
>>>We've been here before, I'm testing against HEAD of apr anr apr-util.
>>>Maybe I should switch to the 0.9 branch, but IMHO the branches should
>>>be equivalent/compatible as far as Subversion is concerned.
>>>      
>>>
>>No, I don't think they are. By definition, they do not have to be -- there
>>is a bump in the major revision.
>>    
>>
>
>I think brane's nightly-build system is flawed here.  I really don't
>like the fact that it builds against APR HEAD.
>  
>
The build system's just fine, but I can switch on a sticky branch tag in
the apr and apr-util working copies.



-- 
Brane Čibej   <br...@xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: svn rev 7629: FAIL (i386-unknown-freebsdelf5.0 shared)

Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net>.

On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 13:10, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 06:00:26PM +0100, brane@xbc.nu wrote:
> >...
> > We've been here before, I'm testing against HEAD of apr anr apr-util.
> > Maybe I should switch to the 0.9 branch, but IMHO the branches should
> > be equivalent/compatible as far as Subversion is concerned.
> 
> No, I don't think they are. By definition, they do not have to be -- there
> is a bump in the major revision.

I think brane's nightly-build system is flawed here.  I really don't
like the fact that it builds against APR HEAD.

If someone commits a bug to APR HEAD, that should *not* cause svn's
regression tests to fail.  Our regression tests should be about
Subversion bugs, not bugs in unreleased libraries we depend on.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: svn rev 7629: FAIL (i386-unknown-freebsdelf5.0 shared)

Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.

On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 06:00:26PM +0100, brane@xbc.nu wrote:
>...
> We've been here before, I'm testing against HEAD of apr anr apr-util.
> Maybe I should switch to the 0.9 branch, but IMHO the branches should
> be equivalent/compatible as far as Subversion is concerned.

No, I don't think they are. By definition, they do not have to be -- there
is a bump in the major revision.

If I recall correctly, the apr_socket_create() function changed its
signature. Take a look at svnserve/main.c for an example of how we're
dealing with the difference.

Hmm. I wonder if apr(-util) HEAD has switched over to -1 on the libraries
that it builds. I bet not...  (and it should cuz of the major number
change and the diff in binary compat).

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: svn rev 7629: FAIL (i386-unknown-freebsdelf5.0 shared)

Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.

> From: brane@xbc.nu [mailto:brane@xbc.nu]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 6:00 PM

> Quoting kfogel@collab.net:
> 
> > > /home/brane/svn/obj-sh/apr/.libs/libapr-1.so: undefined reference to
> > `apr_random_after_fork'
> > > *** Error code 1
> > > 
> > > Stop in /home/brane/svn/obj-sh.
> > > Complete log saved in
> > /home/brane/svn/LOG_svn_build_shared.7629.failed
> > > FAIL: build
> > 
> > Is it because not updated to the APR/APU in Apache 2.0.48?
> 
> We've been here before, I'm testing against HEAD of apr anr apr-util.
> Maybe I should switch to the 0.9 branch, but IMHO the branches should
> be equivalent/compatible as far as Subversion is concerned.

It should be ok now.  There was a commit to APR HEAD that broke
the build.

Sander

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: svn rev 7629: FAIL (i386-unknown-freebsdelf5.0 shared)

Posted by br...@xbc.nu.

Quoting kfogel@collab.net:

> > /home/brane/svn/obj-sh/apr/.libs/libapr-1.so: undefined reference to
> `apr_random_after_fork'
> > *** Error code 1
> > 
> > Stop in /home/brane/svn/obj-sh.
> > Complete log saved in
> /home/brane/svn/LOG_svn_build_shared.7629.failed
> > FAIL: build
> 
> Is it because not updated to the APR/APU in Apache 2.0.48?

We've been here before, I'm testing against HEAD of apr anr apr-util.
Maybe I should switch to the 0.9 branch, but IMHO the branches should
be equivalent/compatible as far as Subversion is concerned.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org