You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Blair Zajac <bz...@demografx.com> on 2002/02/26 00:48:56 UTC
[PATCH] Have svn require Neon 0.19.3
Here's a patch to have svn require Neon 0.19.3 to fix the build issues
on Windows.
Best,
Blair
--
Blair Zajac <bl...@orcaware.com>
Web and OS performance plots - http://www.orcaware.com/orca/
2002-02-25 Blair Zajac <bl...@orcaware.com>
* INSTALL (Contents): Update to use neon 0.19.3.
* CHANGES: Update to use neon 0.19.3.
* build/buildcheck.sh (NEON_WANTED): Update to use neon 0.19.3.
* packages/rpm/README: Update to use neon 0.19.3.
* packages/rpm/subversion.spec: Update to use neon 0.19.3.
Index: ./build/buildcheck.sh
===================================================================
--- ./build/buildcheck.sh
+++ ./build/buildcheck.sh Mon Feb 25 16:38:07 2002
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
#--------------------------------------------------------------------------
# check for the correct version of Neon
#
-NEON_WANTED=0.19.2
+NEON_WANTED=0.19.3
if test -d ./neon; then
NEON_VERSION="`./ac-helpers/get-neon-ver.sh neon`"
if test "$NEON_WANTED" != "$NEON_VERSION"; then
Index: ./INSTALL
===================================================================
--- ./INSTALL
+++ ./.svn/tmp/INSTALL.55676.00001.tmp Mon Feb 25 16:47:07 2002
@@ -132,7 +132,7 @@
Build.
- 5. Neon library 0.19.2
+ 5. Neon library 0.19.3
The Neon library allows a Subversion client to interact with remote
repositories over the Internet. Although in theory you could have
@@ -144,10 +144,10 @@
want Subversion to build it. The source code is included with the
latest Subversion tarball, and it can also be obtained from:
- http://www.webdav.org/neon/neon-0.19.2.tar.gz
+ http://www.webdav.org/neon/neon-0.19.3.tar.gz
Unpack the archive using tar/gunzip and rename the resulting
- directory from "./neon-0.19.2/" to "./neon/".
+ directory from "./neon-0.19.3/" to "./neon/".
Without source code, a previously compiled library can be picked up
from the standard locations. If you want to specify a nonstandard
@@ -362,7 +362,7 @@
apache*.i386.rpm (Version 2.0.32 or greater)
db*.i386.rpm (Version 4.0.14 or greater)
expat (Comes with RedHat)
- neon (Version 0.19.2 or greater)
+ neon (Version 0.19.3 or greater)
After downloading, install it (as root user):
@@ -537,7 +537,7 @@
supported at this time.
To build the client components, you'll need a copy of neon
- 0.19.2. See section I.5 for details on where to get one and what
+ 0.19.3. See section I.5 for details on where to get one and what
to do with it when you get it.
[NOTE: The neon library supports secure connections with OpenSSL
Index: ./CHANGES
===================================================================
--- ./CHANGES
+++ ./CHANGES Mon Feb 25 16:36:50 2002
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Version 0.10
* build system evolution
- - upgrade to neon 0.19.2
+ - upgrade to neon 0.19.3
Version 0.9 (released 15 Feb 2002, revision 1302)
Index: ./packages/rpm/subversion.spec
===================================================================
--- ./packages/rpm/subversion.spec
+++ ./packages/rpm/subversion.spec Mon Feb 25 16:37:48 2002
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
%define apache_version 2.0.32-0.4
-%define neon_version 0.19.2
+%define neon_version 0.19.3
%define apr_date 2002.02.15
Summary: A Concurrent Versioning system similar to but better than CVS.
Name: subversion
@@ -60,6 +60,9 @@
the Apache directories and configuration.
%changelog
+* Mon Feb 25 2002 Blair Zajac <bl...@orcaware.com>
+- Updated to neon-0.19.3.
+
* Sun Feb 24 2002 David Summers <da...@summersoft.fay.ar.us> 0.9.0-1373
- Fixed expat.patch to not have to make so many changes by writing a small
shell script that changes libexpat to -lexpat.
Index: ./packages/rpm/README
===================================================================
--- ./packages/rpm/README
+++ ./packages/rpm/README Mon Feb 25 16:37:00 2002
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
db >= 4.0.14
expat (comes with RedHat)
- neon = 0.19.2
+ neon = 0.19.3
apache >= 2.0.32 (for subversion-server)
B. To compile:
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
apache-devel >= 2.0.32
expat-devel
libtool >= 1.4.2
- neon = 0.19.2
+ neon = 0.19.3
python >= 1.5.2 (2.0 or greater to run check programs)
The non-standard packages apache-2.0.32, db, and neon, can be found at:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Have svn require Neon 0.19.3
Posted by Ben Collins <bc...@debian.org>.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 07:24:58PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 10:05:27PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 06:36:31PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
> >...
> > > We would need all three: major, minor, and patch. API changes occur even
> > > between patches, so we will sometimes need to specify a specific patch
> > > release.
> >
> > That's pretty flawed, IMO.
>
> Eh? The API isn't stable, and it changes between patch levels. Neon has not
> seen a 1.0 release, and its API is explicitly subject to change.
I'm going by libtool's suggested usage of major/minor/patchlevel, which
calls for atleast the update of minor (they call it something different,
but it eludes me right now) to signify that the API is changed. Changing
the API is perfectly fine, if the soname and minor abide by certain
rules. Just imaging that if I compile something against 0.19.2 and tried
to run it against 0.19.3. Same soname, same minor; should work. If the
API changes to break that, then it should be 0.20.1, not 0.19.3. On the
opposite hand, you can't expect something compiled against 0.19.3 to
work with 0.19.2 at all.
> Personally, I'm glad for it. I will *happily* update our use of Neon, if
> that change to Neon improved it. I would hate to see a case where Neon (or
> any other Open Source package) got held back from doing the Right Thing.
Agreed.
> >...
> > I was thinking something like:
> >
> > NEON_VER_REGEX="'0.19.[2-9]'"
> >
> > NEON_VER=`neon-config #or whatever`
> >
> > NEON_PASSED=`echo $NEON_VER | grep -E $NEON_VER_REGEX`
> >
> > if test "$NEON_VER" == "$NEON_PASSED"; then
> > # Kick ass, this version is ok
> > fi
>
> Sure, as long as we stick to a lower/upper bound concept. The mechanics
> don't bother me.
>
>
> Patches welcome :-)
What!? I produce working pseudo code and you want patches!? What's this
world coming to!? :)
--
.----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----.
/ Ben Collins -- Debian GNU/Linux -- WatchGuard.com \
` bcollins@debian.org -- Ben.Collins@watchguard.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Have svn require Neon 0.19.3
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 10:05:27PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 06:36:31PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
> > We would need all three: major, minor, and patch. API changes occur even
> > between patches, so we will sometimes need to specify a specific patch
> > release.
>
> That's pretty flawed, IMO.
Eh? The API isn't stable, and it changes between patch levels. Neon has not
seen a 1.0 release, and its API is explicitly subject to change.
Personally, I'm glad for it. I will *happily* update our use of Neon, if
that change to Neon improved it. I would hate to see a case where Neon (or
any other Open Source package) got held back from doing the Right Thing.
>...
> I was thinking something like:
>
> NEON_VER_REGEX="'0.19.[2-9]'"
>
> NEON_VER=`neon-config #or whatever`
>
> NEON_PASSED=`echo $NEON_VER | grep -E $NEON_VER_REGEX`
>
> if test "$NEON_VER" == "$NEON_PASSED"; then
> # Kick ass, this version is ok
> fi
Sure, as long as we stick to a lower/upper bound concept. The mechanics
don't bother me.
Patches welcome :-)
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: [PATCH] Have svn require Neon 0.19.3
Posted by Ben Collins <bc...@debian.org>.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 06:36:31PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 08:50:45PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 08:14:44PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> >...
> > > > Is there anyway we can not force a specific version of neon for the
> > > > builds, and maybe use a range of versions that work? 0.19.2 is perfectly
> > > > fine to use for subversion. It may itself fail to build on win32, but
> > > > that doesn't mean that subversion should be restricted 0.19.3.
> > >
> > > I would also like to see this.
> >
> > Can't we just autoconf on NEON_VERSION_MAJOR and NEON_VERSION_MINOR, at
> > the very least?
> > I would assume they at least bump the minor when the api changes.
> >
> > (currently MAJOR == 0, MINOR == 19)
>
> We would need all three: major, minor, and patch. API changes occur even
> between patches, so we will sometimes need to specify a specific patch
> release.
That's pretty flawed, IMO.
> Also, note that we cannot specify a "minimum". It has to be a bounded
> constraint because the revisions are not API compatible moving forward.
> Today, we say 0.19.2 and that is all we are guaranteed to run on. 0.19.4
> could introduce an API change that breaks us, similar to moving back to
> 0.19.0 or something.
I was thinking something like:
NEON_VER_REGEX="'0.19.[2-9]'"
NEON_VER=`neon-config #or whatever`
NEON_PASSED=`echo $NEON_VER | grep -E $NEON_VER_REGEX`
if test "$NEON_VER" == "$NEON_PASSED"; then
# Kick ass, this version is ok
fi
> The net result is that we stick to a specific Neon release. If we specify a
> bounded range, then we could tweak the upper bound as new releases come out,
> but that upper-bound tweak has to be done manually. For example, today, we
> could set the bounds at (0, 19, 2) and (0, 19, 3). Let's say 0.19.4 comes
> out; if it works, then we could change the upper bound; but we can't do that
> before the release.
Sounds like a winner to me.
--
.----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----.
/ Ben Collins -- Debian GNU/Linux -- WatchGuard.com \
` bcollins@debian.org -- Ben.Collins@watchguard.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Have svn require Neon 0.19.3
Posted by Bruce Atherton <br...@callenish.com>.
At 06:36 PM 2/25/2002 -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
>The net result is that we stick to a specific Neon release. If we specify a
>bounded range, then we could tweak the upper bound as new releases come out,
>but that upper-bound tweak has to be done manually. For example, today, we
>could set the bounds at (0, 19, 2) and (0, 19, 3). Let's say 0.19.4 comes
>out; if it works, then we could change the upper bound; but we can't do that
>before the release.
Is there any possibility that there could be an option to force acceptance
of whatever version of Neon is around? Or at least to allow a version that
goes past the stated maximum?
The reason I ask is that for nightly builds, you really want at least the
possibility of checking out the latest Neon from CVS. The earlier we can
detect API incompatibilities, the cheaper it will be to fix them.
Obviously, this wouldn't be used by the casual user. But there are times I
know better than Subversion does about what versions I want to test with,
and I'd really like the possibility of getting final say.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Have svn require Neon 0.19.3
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 08:50:45PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 08:14:44PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>...
> > > Is there anyway we can not force a specific version of neon for the
> > > builds, and maybe use a range of versions that work? 0.19.2 is perfectly
> > > fine to use for subversion. It may itself fail to build on win32, but
> > > that doesn't mean that subversion should be restricted 0.19.3.
> >
> > I would also like to see this.
>
> Can't we just autoconf on NEON_VERSION_MAJOR and NEON_VERSION_MINOR, at
> the very least?
> I would assume they at least bump the minor when the api changes.
>
> (currently MAJOR == 0, MINOR == 19)
We would need all three: major, minor, and patch. API changes occur even
between patches, so we will sometimes need to specify a specific patch
release.
Also, note that we cannot specify a "minimum". It has to be a bounded
constraint because the revisions are not API compatible moving forward.
Today, we say 0.19.2 and that is all we are guaranteed to run on. 0.19.4
could introduce an API change that breaks us, similar to moving back to
0.19.0 or something.
The net result is that we stick to a specific Neon release. If we specify a
bounded range, then we could tweak the upper bound as new releases come out,
but that upper-bound tweak has to be done manually. For example, today, we
could set the bounds at (0, 19, 2) and (0, 19, 3). Let's say 0.19.4 comes
out; if it works, then we could change the upper bound; but we can't do that
before the release.
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: [PATCH] Have svn require Neon 0.19.3
Posted by Daniel Berlin <da...@dberlin.org>.
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 08:14:44PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 04:48:56PM -0800, Blair Zajac wrote:
> > > Here's a patch to have svn require Neon 0.19.3 to fix the build issues
> > > on Windows.
> > >
> >
> > Is there anyway we can not force a specific version of neon for the
> > builds, and maybe use a range of versions that work? 0.19.2 is perfectly
> > fine to use for subversion. It may itself fail to build on win32, but
> > that doesn't mean that subversion should be restricted 0.19.3.
>
> I would also like to see this.
Can't we just autoconf on NEON_VERSION_MAJOR and NEON_VERSION_MINOR, at
the very least?
I would assume they at least bump the minor when the api changes.
(currently MAJOR == 0, MINOR == 19)
--Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Have svn require Neon 0.19.3
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 08:14:44PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 04:48:56PM -0800, Blair Zajac wrote:
> > Here's a patch to have svn require Neon 0.19.3 to fix the build issues
> > on Windows.
> >
>
> Is there anyway we can not force a specific version of neon for the
> builds, and maybe use a range of versions that work? 0.19.2 is perfectly
> fine to use for subversion. It may itself fail to build on win32, but
> that doesn't mean that subversion should be restricted 0.19.3.
I would also like to see this.
-garrett
--
garrett rooney Unix was not designed to stop you from
rooneg@electricjellyfish.net doing stupid things, because that would
http://electricjellyfish.net/ stop you from doing clever things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Have svn require Neon 0.19.3
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
> This may be ok for FreeBSD where the release is built from an entire
> tree. Debian is a little different where different people maintain
> different parts of the dist. One maintainer having to rely on such
> strict updates of the other is not a good thing, especially when talking
> about 10 architectures that also need to stay in sync.
>
> Do you build neon statically with subversion in FreeBSD, or as a
> seperate self-standing package? That makes all the difference in the
> world. Is subversion actually a part of FreeBSD proper?
subversion is part of the FreeBSD ports tree, which isn't part of
FreeBSD per say, but it is the source of the packages people use on
FreeBSD.
at the moment, I solve the neon dependency by not updating neon until
subversion is updated, and keeping them in sync. this is possible
since not much else uses neon, but i can see your point, and a more
relaxed test for neon versions would certainly make things easier in
the case where neon is a package that is used by more packages and is
updated more often.
-garrett
--
garrett rooney Unix was not designed to stop you from
rooneg@electricjellyfish.net doing stupid things, because that would
http://electricjellyfish.net/ stop you from doing clever things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Have svn require Neon 0.19.3
Posted by Ben Collins <bc...@debian.org>.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 09:50:32PM -0500, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 09:40:35PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > Not to mention that in the world where software is installed via
> > packaged (like 99.999% of Linux systems), strictly enforcing a version
> > like this makes it extrememly difficult to maintain from the
> > distribution standpoint (which is the standpoint I have to look at it
> > from).
>
> i don't quite agree... the specific version of neon doesn't seem to be
> that much of a problem from a packaging standpoint IMO. packages
> should be built from releases, which are not too frequent, and
> requiring specific versions of libraries for a release makes sense to
> me. you get a more stable debugging environment for handling bug
> reports from users.
We may start the next Debian release with neon 0.19.2 (built seperately
from subversion of course). Months later while the dist is still in
development, neon 0.19.7 comes around. While subversion may still run
against this newer lib, it suddenly can't be built against it anymore
(since 0.19.2 and 0.19.7 can't be installed at the same time, because
the soname for both is libneon.so.19).
So, we enter a never ending cycle of strict deps, that do not need to
occur. Neon maintainer can't force/restrict updates just because of
subversion, while the subversion maintainer can't update to newer
versions of subversion unless the _exact_ neon lib is available. This is
bad.
> i have the same issues to deal with for FreeBSD ports of subversion,
> and the answer is just to only upgrade the version of neon when a
> release of subversion requires it, not when the development version of
> svn requires it. developers should be able to handle these sort of
> things.
>
This may be ok for FreeBSD where the release is built from an entire
tree. Debian is a little different where different people maintain
different parts of the dist. One maintainer having to rely on such
strict updates of the other is not a good thing, especially when talking
about 10 architectures that also need to stay in sync.
Do you build neon statically with subversion in FreeBSD, or as a
seperate self-standing package? That makes all the difference in the
world. Is subversion actually a part of FreeBSD proper?
--
.----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----.
/ Ben Collins -- Debian GNU/Linux -- WatchGuard.com \
` bcollins@debian.org -- Ben.Collins@watchguard.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Have svn require Neon 0.19.3
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 09:40:35PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> Not to mention that in the world where software is installed via
> packaged (like 99.999% of Linux systems), strictly enforcing a version
> like this makes it extrememly difficult to maintain from the
> distribution standpoint (which is the standpoint I have to look at it
> from).
i don't quite agree... the specific version of neon doesn't seem to be
that much of a problem from a packaging standpoint IMO. packages
should be built from releases, which are not too frequent, and
requiring specific versions of libraries for a release makes sense to
me. you get a more stable debugging environment for handling bug
reports from users.
i have the same issues to deal with for FreeBSD ports of subversion,
and the answer is just to only upgrade the version of neon when a
release of subversion requires it, not when the development version of
svn requires it. developers should be able to handle these sort of
things.
-garrett
--
garrett rooney Unix was not designed to stop you from
rooneg@electricjellyfish.net doing stupid things, because that would
http://electricjellyfish.net/ stop you from doing clever things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Have svn require Neon 0.19.3
Posted by Ben Collins <bc...@debian.org>.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 05:54:49PM -0800, Blair Zajac wrote:
> Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 04:48:56PM -0800, Blair Zajac wrote:
> > > Here's a patch to have svn require Neon 0.19.3 to fix the build issues
> > > on Windows.
> > >
> >
> > Is there anyway we can not force a specific version of neon for the
> > builds, and maybe use a range of versions that work? 0.19.2 is perfectly
> > fine to use for subversion. It may itself fail to build on win32, but
> > that doesn't mean that subversion should be restricted 0.19.3.
> >
> > Ben
>
> I don't see why we would want to do this while we know of an outstanding
> issue in compiling neon. Why would you want to let somebody waste their
> time to do this. This reminds me of trying to build apr with autoconf
> 2.52f+ and finally realizing you had to back down to an older version.
> Anything to make people spend less time fighting problems always works
> for me.
>
> Now when we have a stable release of neon, then I agree, we can require
> an older version, but for this one issue, I don't see why not to force
> an upgrade. At some point, we would require 0.19.3 anyway.
Because I can use neon 0.19.2 just fine. Why force people like me to use
a newer neon needlessly? Unlink you, I have neon installed on my system
seperately from subversion.
Not to mention that in the world where software is installed via
packaged (like 99.999% of Linux systems), strictly enforcing a version
like this makes it extrememly difficult to maintain from the
distribution standpoint (which is the standpoint I have to look at it
from).
Perhaps in this case forcing 0.19.2 to fail is ok but what about 0.19.3
and 0.19.4 and 0.19.5? If they all work, then they should all be usable
in a single version of subversion.
--
.----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----.
/ Ben Collins -- Debian GNU/Linux -- WatchGuard.com \
` bcollins@debian.org -- Ben.Collins@watchguard.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Have svn require Neon 0.19.3
Posted by Blair Zajac <bz...@demografx.com>.
Ben Collins wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 04:48:56PM -0800, Blair Zajac wrote:
> > Here's a patch to have svn require Neon 0.19.3 to fix the build issues
> > on Windows.
> >
>
> Is there anyway we can not force a specific version of neon for the
> builds, and maybe use a range of versions that work? 0.19.2 is perfectly
> fine to use for subversion. It may itself fail to build on win32, but
> that doesn't mean that subversion should be restricted 0.19.3.
>
> Ben
I don't see why we would want to do this while we know of an outstanding
issue in compiling neon. Why would you want to let somebody waste their
time to do this. This reminds me of trying to build apr with autoconf
2.52f+ and finally realizing you had to back down to an older version.
Anything to make people spend less time fighting problems always works
for me.
Now when we have a stable release of neon, then I agree, we can require
an older version, but for this one issue, I don't see why not to force
an upgrade. At some point, we would require 0.19.3 anyway.
Best,
Blair
--
Blair Zajac <bl...@orcaware.com>
Web and OS performance plots - http://www.orcaware.com/orca/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Have svn require Neon 0.19.3
Posted by Ben Collins <bc...@debian.org>.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 04:48:56PM -0800, Blair Zajac wrote:
> Here's a patch to have svn require Neon 0.19.3 to fix the build issues
> on Windows.
>
Is there anyway we can not force a specific version of neon for the
builds, and maybe use a range of versions that work? 0.19.2 is perfectly
fine to use for subversion. It may itself fail to build on win32, but
that doesn't mean that subversion should be restricted 0.19.3.
Ben
--
.----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----.
/ Ben Collins -- Debian GNU/Linux -- WatchGuard.com \
` bcollins@debian.org -- Ben.Collins@watchguard.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [PATCH] Have svn require Neon 0.19.3
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Blair Zajac wrote:
>Here's a patch to have svn require Neon 0.19.3 to fix the build issues
>on Windows.
>
>Best,
>Blair
>
Everybody calm down. The Win32 build doesn't care a gnat's whisker about
the version autogen.sh thinks it's enforcing, so it makes no sense to
change this now.
We don't do any neon version checking on Windows. If, at a later date,
we upgrade the required version on unix because of an API change, the
win32 build will fail without the upgrade, anyway.
--
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