You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> on 2004/03/18 13:05:37 UTC
problem in 1.0.1 tarball
Looks like SVN_VER_NUMTAG was not changed to "". Thus, any 1.0.1
installation running via Apache will say it is running 1.0.1-dev.
:-(
--
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: problem in 1.0.1 tarball
Posted by David Summers <da...@summersoft.fay.ar.us>.
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Philip Martin wrote:
> Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> writes:
>
> > Looks like SVN_VER_NUMTAG was not changed to "". Thus, any 1.0.1
> > installation running via Apache will say it is running 1.0.1-dev.
>
> There is also a testsuite patch on the 1.0.0 branch that didn't make
> it onto the 1.0.x branch, see this thread:
>
> http://www.contactor.se/~dast/svn/archive-2004-03/0769.shtml
>
>
I think this was what I was seeing on my Fedora and WBEL3 builds (but not
RedHat 7.3, 8.0, or 9.0 for some reason).
When I included that patch in the build the problem went away. I'm not
convinced that it isn't something wierd I'm doing in my Fedora and WBEL3
SPEC files yet, though.
--
David Wayne Summers "Linux: Because reboots are for hardware 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: problem in 1.0.1 tarball
Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@codematters.co.uk>.
Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> writes:
> Looks like SVN_VER_NUMTAG was not changed to "". Thus, any 1.0.1
> installation running via Apache will say it is running 1.0.1-dev.
There is also a testsuite patch on the 1.0.0 branch that didn't make
it onto the 1.0.x branch, see this thread:
http://www.contactor.se/~dast/svn/archive-2004-03/0769.shtml
--
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: problem in 1.0.1 tarball
Posted by John Szakmeister <jo...@szakmeister.net>.
On Thursday 18 March 2004 15:23, Eric Gillespie wrote:
> Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> writes:
> > Looks like SVN_VER_NUMTAG was not changed to "". Thus, any
> > 1.0.1 installation running via Apache will say it is running
> > 1.0.1-dev.
>
> Um, are you sure? Our servers, running 1.0.1 since Tuesday, say:
>
> Powered by Subversion version 1.0.1 (r9023).
I built mine from the tarball as well and it's fine too.
-John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: problem in 1.0.1 tarball
Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@codematters.co.uk>.
Eric Gillespie <ep...@pretzelnet.org> writes:
> Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> writes:
>
>> Looks like SVN_VER_NUMTAG was not changed to "". Thus, any
>> 1.0.1 installation running via Apache will say it is running
>> 1.0.1-dev.
>
> Um, are you sure? Our servers, running 1.0.1 since Tuesday, say:
>
> Powered by Subversion version 1.0.1 (r9023).
That's because the dist.sh script replaces SVN_VER_NUMTAG in the
tarball. The 1.0.1 tag in the repository still claims to be a dev
version, and that's different from the 1.0.0 tag.
--
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: problem in 1.0.1 tarball
Posted by Eric Gillespie <ep...@pretzelnet.org>.
Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> writes:
> Looks like SVN_VER_NUMTAG was not changed to "". Thus, any
> 1.0.1 installation running via Apache will say it is running
> 1.0.1-dev.
Um, are you sure? Our servers, running 1.0.1 since Tuesday, say:
Powered by Subversion version 1.0.1 (r9023).
--
Eric Gillespie <*> epg@pretzelnet.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: problem in 1.0.1 tarball
Posted by Nuutti Kotivuori <na...@iki.fi>.
Greg Stein wrote:
> Looks like SVN_VER_NUMTAG was not changed to "". Thus, any 1.0.1
> installation running via Apache will say it is running 1.0.1-dev.
Ah! I noticed that on svn.collab.net just after cmpilato had upgraded
it. But I assumed it was only *that* version, that the version
installed was not the official 1.0.1 version.
Oh well, 1.0.2 fixeth, I guess.
-- Naked
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org