You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Fa...@ses-astra.com on 2006/06/02 13:42:18 UTC
Fw: users Digest 24 May 2006 20:15:16 -0000 Issue 1755
Hello everybody,
I have already posted this one one week ago, but no answer yet, so I try
again... :p
I am using the following:
* svn, version 1.2.3 (r15833) compiled Aug 26 2005, 03:42:45
* Linux fboulepc 2.6.15-1.1833_FC4smp #1 SMP Wed Mar 1 23:56:51 EST 2006
i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
In my repository, I work with proj/trunk (stable) and
proj/branches/proj_dev (development). The respective sandboxes are
l~/Projects/proj and ~/Projects/proj_dev.
Now when I want to merge the latest modifications to the trunk, I type:
[fboule@fboulepc proj]$ cd ~/Projects/proj
[fboule@fboulepc proj]$ svn merge -r committed:head ../proj_dev .
However, it doesn't work as expected (as I would expect I should maybe
say).
An example hereafter:
[fboule@fboulepc proj]$ svn update
At revision 247.
[fboule@fboulepc proj]$ svn info
Path: .
URL: file:///home/svn/WEB/proj/trunk
Repository UUID: 3dc7c77c-889d-2f49-9d6b-63af54285b16
Revision: 247
Node Kind: directory
Schedule: normal
Last Changed Author: fboule
Last Changed Rev: 243
Last Changed Date: 2006-05-23 11:42:06 +0000 (Tue, 23 May 2006)
And now:
[fboule@fboulepc proj]$ svn merge --dry-run -r COMMITTED:HEAD
../proj_dev/ .
[fboule@fboulepc proj]$
I would expect the following:
[fboule@fboulepc proj]$ svn merge --dry-run -r 243:HEAD ../proj_dev/ .
U fndisplay.php
U frmmain.php
U changelog.txt
U frmtemplate_part1.php
Am I doing something wrong?
Best Regards,
Fabien
----- Forwarded by Fabien Bouleau/BTZ on 02/06/2006 15:38 -----
users-digest-help
@subversion.tigri
s.org To
users@subversion.tigris.org
24/05/2006 22:15 cc
Subject
users Digest 24 May 2006 20:15:16
-0000 Issue 1755
users Digest 24 May 2006 20:15:16 -0000 Issue 1755
Topics (messages 49649 through 49678):
svn log timestamp bug?
49649 by: Johnathan Gifford
49652 by: Andy Levy
49653 by: Johnathan Gifford
49654 by: Ryan Schmidt
49655 by: Ryan Schmidt
49658 by: Johnathan Gifford
49659 by: Gale, David
Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Repos on Linux (RH9), want to view
offline on Windows
49650 by: Nico Kadel-Garcia
49657 by: Britain Crooker
Re: Question about svn lock
49651 by: Nico Kadel-Garcia
Re: More debug info options than "neon-debug-mask = 130"?
49656 by: Jeff Jensen
Import Option Using Subversion
49660 by: Shankaramurthy, Nagaraj
49665 by: Ryan Schmidt
problem with setting up the httpd.conf file
49661 by: CLAYTON LUIZ DE ANDRADE
49664 by: Edward Bosco
49666 by: Ryan Schmidt
49668 by: CLAYTON LUIZ DE ANDRADE
CPU usage during commits
49662 by: Sinang, Danny
49667 by: Ryan Schmidt
49669 by: Andy Levy
49670 by: Simon Butler
49671 by: Ryan Schmidt
49676 by: Simon Butler
49678 by: Garrett Rooney
FSFS / svn client time outs
49663 by: Sinang, Danny
...is not a working copy directory
49672 by: George Georgalis
49673 by: George Georgalis
49674 by: Trevor Whitlock
Re: Recover after HD crash (SVN with FSFS backend)
49675 by: Blair Zajac
Re: ranlib: command not found - Subversion1.3.1 Make install on Solaris9
49677 by: ilmars.katajs-paeglis.chase.com
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
users-digest-subscribe@subversion.tigris.org
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
users-digest-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
To post to the list, e-mail:
users@subversion.tigris.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Message from Johnathan Gifford <jg...@wernervas.com> on Wed, 24
May 2006 07:26:37 -0500 -----
To: 'SVN Users email list' <us...@subversion.tigris.org>
Subject: svn log timestamp bug?
When I run the below svn command:
svn log -v -r {2006-05-17T00:05}:{2006-05-24T00:05} --username XXXX
--password XXXX http://myserver.com/to/my/path
In the results I consistently get this revision:
r14662 | jdoe | 2006-05-16 17:18:43 -0500 (Tue, 16 May 2006) | 1 line
The timestamps used specify any revision between 5/17/2006 at 12:05 AM to
5/24/2006 at 12:05 AM should be outputted. But this result is dated
5/16/2006 at 5:18 PM?!?!?!? It is not in the timestamp range. Even if you
include the offset (-0500) that still doesn't put it in the range. Should
this be showing up? I've also tried other timestamp formats (
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.tour.revs.html#svn.tour.revs.dates
) and also get the same revision showing up.
Subversion 1.3.0
Apache 2.2
Mac OS X 10.4.5
Johnathan
----- Message from "Andy Levy" <an...@gmail.com> on Wed, 24 May 2006
08:39:40 -0400 -----
To: "Johnathan Gifford" <jg...@wernervas.com>
cc: "SVN Users email list" <us...@subversion.tigris.org>
Subject: Re: svn log timestamp bug?
On 5/24/06, Johnathan Gifford <jg...@wernervas.com> wrote:
>
> When I run the below svn command:
>
> svn log -v -r {2006-05-17T00:05}:{2006-05-24T00:05}
> --username XXXX --password XXXX http://myserver.com/to/my/path
>
> In the results I consistently get this revision:
>
> r14662 | jdoe | 2006-05-16 17:18:43 -0500 (Tue, 16 May 2006) | 1 line
>
> The timestamps used specify any revision between 5/17/2006 at 12:05 AM
to
> 5/24/2006 at 12:05 AM should be outputted. But this result is dated
> 5/16/2006 at 5:18 PM?!?!?!? It is not in the timestamp range. Even if
you
> include the offset (-0500) that still doesn't put it in the range.
Should
> this be showing up? I've also tried other timestamp formats (
>
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.tour.revs.html#svn.tour.revs.dates
> ) and also get the same revision showing up.
When you do revisions by date/time, the current revision at the start
time is what was reported. So, if at 2006-05-17T00:05, the current
latest revision is what was checked in at 2006-05-16 17:18:43 -0500,
that's what will be reported as the first revision in the log.
It took me an hour or two while working on my log reporting script to
reconcile this in my head too.
What's the timestamp on revision 14663? It should be later than
2006-05-17T00:05 If it's not, then there might be a bug.
----- Message from Johnathan Gifford <jg...@wernervas.com> on Wed, 24
May 2006 07:54:27 -0500 -----
To: Andy Levy <an...@gmail.com>
cc: SVN Users email list <us...@subversion.tigris.org>
Subject: Re: svn log timestamp bug?
On 5/24/06 7:39 AM, "Andy Levy" <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/24/06, Johnathan Gifford <jg...@wernervas.com> wrote:
>>
>> When I run the below svn command:
>>
>> svn log -v -r {2006-05-17T00:05}:{2006-05-24T00:05}
>> --username XXXX --password XXXX http://myserver.com/to/my/path
>>
>> In the results I consistently get this revision:
>>
>> r14662 | jdoe | 2006-05-16 17:18:43 -0500 (Tue, 16 May 2006) | 1 line
>>
>> The timestamps used specify any revision between 5/17/2006 at 12:05 AM
to
>> 5/24/2006 at 12:05 AM should be outputted. But this result is dated
>> 5/16/2006 at 5:18 PM?!?!?!? It is not in the timestamp range. Even if
you
>> include the offset (-0500) that still doesn't put it in the range.
Should
>> this be showing up? I've also tried other timestamp formats (
>>
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.tour.revs.html#svn.tour.revs.dates
>> ) and also get the same revision showing up.
>
> When you do revisions by date/time, the current revision at the start
> time is what was reported. So, if at 2006-05-17T00:05, the current
> latest revision is what was checked in at 2006-05-16 17:18:43 -0500,
> that's what will be reported as the first revision in the log.
>
> It took me an hour or two while working on my log reporting script to
> reconcile this in my head too.
>
> What's the timestamp on revision 14663? It should be later than
> 2006-05-17T00:05 If it's not, then there might be a bug.
The next revision in that path:
r14696 | jdoe | 2006-05-17 15:30:47 -0500 (Wed, 17 May 2006) | 1 line
I've been running a report script for four weeks with the above command and
this is the first time this anomaly has shown up. I would agree with your
statement about the latest revision if I was only looking one day, but I'm
searching by a range. I would expect only revisions between that range to
be returned.
----- Message from Ryan Schmidt <su...@ryandesign.com> on Wed,
24 May 2006 14:59:46 +0200 -----
To: Johnathan Gifford <jg...@wernervas.com>
cc: 'SVN Users email list' <us...@subversion.tigris.org>
Subject: Re: svn log timestamp bug?
On May 24, 2006, at 14:26, Johnathan Gifford wrote:
> When I run the below svn command:
>
> svn log -v -r {2006-05-17T00:05}:{2006-05-24T00:05} --username XXXX
> --password XXXX http://myserver.com/to/my/path
>
> In the results I consistently get this revision:
>
> r14662 | jdoe | 2006-05-16 17:18:43 -0500 (Tue, 16 May 2006) | 1 line
>
> The timestamps used specify any revision between 5/17/2006 at 12:05
> AM to 5/24/2006 at 12:05 AM should be outputted. But this result
> is dated 5/16/2006 at 5:18 PM?!?!?!? It is not in the timestamp
> range. Even if you include the offset (-0500) that still doesn't
> put it in the range. Should this be showing up? I've also tried
> other timestamp formats ( http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/
> svn.tour.revs.html#svn.tour.revs.dates ) and also get the same
> revision showing up.
As explained at the URL in the book you gave, Subversion will find
the most recent revision as of the given date/time -- meaning, it'll
give you the revision on or before that date/time:
> When you specify a date as a revision, Subversion finds the most
> recent revision of the repository as of that date:
>
> $ svn log --revision {2002-11-28}
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> r12 | ira | 2002-11-27 12:31:51 -0600 (Wed, 27 Nov 2002) | 6 lines
> …
If you ask for {2006-05-17T00:05} but the last change you made before
2006-05-17T00:05 was on 2006-05-16T17:18:43, then you'll get the
revision from 2006-05-16T17:18:43.
----- Message from Ryan Schmidt <su...@ryandesign.com> on Wed,
24 May 2006 15:13:22 +0200 -----
To: Johnathan Gifford <jg...@wernervas.com>
cc: Andy Levy <an...@gmail.com>, SVN Users email list
<us...@subversion.tigris.org>
Subjec Re: svn log timestamp bug?
t:
On May 24, 2006, at 14:54, Johnathan Gifford wrote:
>> When you do revisions by date/time, the current revision at the start
>> time is what was reported. So, if at 2006-05-17T00:05, the current
>> latest revision is what was checked in at 2006-05-16 17:18:43 -0500,
>> that's what will be reported as the first revision in the log.
>>
>> It took me an hour or two while working on my log reporting script to
>> reconcile this in my head too.
>>
>> What's the timestamp on revision 14663? It should be later than
>> 2006-05-17T00:05 If it's not, then there might be a bug.
>
> The next revision in that path:
>
> r14696 | jdoe | 2006-05-17 15:30:47 -0500 (Wed, 17 May 2006) | 1 line
>
> I've been running a report script for four weeks with the above
> command and
> this is the first time this anomaly has shown up. I would agree
> with your
> statement about the latest revision if I was only looking one day,
> but I'm
> searching by a range. I would expect only revisions between that
> range to
> be returned.
Well, that's not what Subversion does, and that's not what's
described in the book.
----- Message from Johnathan Gifford <jg...@wernervas.com> on Wed, 24
May 2006 08:35:08 -0500 -----
To: Ryan Schmidt <su...@ryandesign.com>
cc: Andy Levy <an...@gmail.com>, SVN Users email list
<us...@subversion.tigris.org>
Subjec Re: svn log timestamp bug?
t:
On 5/24/06 8:13 AM, "Ryan Schmidt" <su...@ryandesign.com>
wrote:
> On May 24, 2006, at 14:54, Johnathan Gifford wrote:
>
>>> When you do revisions by date/time, the current revision at the start
>>> time is what was reported. So, if at 2006-05-17T00:05, the current
>>> latest revision is what was checked in at 2006-05-16 17:18:43 -0500,
>>> that's what will be reported as the first revision in the log.
>>>
>>> It took me an hour or two while working on my log reporting script to
>>> reconcile this in my head too.
>>>
>>> What's the timestamp on revision 14663? It should be later than
>>> 2006-05-17T00:05 If it's not, then there might be a bug.
>>
>> The next revision in that path:
>>
>> r14696 | jdoe | 2006-05-17 15:30:47 -0500 (Wed, 17 May 2006) | 1 line
>>
>> I've been running a report script for four weeks with the above
>> command and
>> this is the first time this anomaly has shown up. I would agree
>> with your
>> statement about the latest revision if I was only looking one day,
>> but I'm
>> searching by a range. I would expect only revisions between that
>> range to
>> be returned.
>
> Well, that's not what Subversion does, and that's not what's
> described in the book.
>
>
Beg to differ. I also run the same command on two other repository paths
using the same date range. Because there are hardly ever any changes on
these paths I always get an empty response ( see 'Why Does svn log Give Me
an Empty Response?' at
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.tour.history.html#svn.tour.histor
y.log ).
As far as what the book describes (
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.tour.revs.html#svn.tour.revs.date
s ), it only refers to a single date for the revision. There is no
information in regards to searching by a revision range using dates. I
would expect a date range to only return revisions in the date range.
r14696 is in revision range and should be in the list, however, r14662 is
not in the revision range and should NOT be in the return list.
----- Message from "Gale, David" <Da...@Hypertherm.com> on Wed, 24 May
2006 09:47:02 -0400 -----
To: "Ryan Schmidt" <su...@ryandesign.com>, "Johnathan
Gifford" <jg...@wernervas.com>
cc: "Andy Levy" <an...@gmail.com>, "SVN Users email list"
<us...@subversion.tigris.org>
Subje RE: Re: svn log timestamp bug?
ct:
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On May 24, 2006, at 14:54, Johnathan Gifford wrote:
>
>>> When you do revisions by date/time, the current revision at the
>>> start time is what was reported. So, if at 2006-05-17T00:05, the
>>> current latest revision is what was checked in at 2006-05-16
>>> 17:18:43 -0500, that's what will be reported as the first revision
>>> in the log.
>>>
>>> It took me an hour or two while working on my log reporting script
>>> to reconcile this in my head too.
>>>
>>> What's the timestamp on revision 14663? It should be later than
>>> 2006-05-17T00:05 If it's not, then there might be a bug.
>>
>> The next revision in that path:
>>
>> r14696 | jdoe | 2006-05-17 15:30:47 -0500 (Wed, 17 May 2006) | 1 line
>>
>> I've been running a report script for four weeks with the above
>> command and this is the first time this anomaly has shown up. I
>> would agree with your statement about the latest revision if I was
>> only looking one day, but I'm searching by a range. I would expect
>> only revisions between that range to be returned.
>
> Well, that's not what Subversion does, and that's not what's
> described in the book.
Actually, it *is* what's described in the book:
(http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.tour.revs.html#svn.tour.revs
.dates)
"You can also use a range of dates. Subversion will find all revisions
between both dates, inclusive:"
I played around with this a bit, and I couldn't convince myself that
subversion was handling things correctly (or, at least, consistently):
$ svn log -q -r{2005-11-22T00:05}:{2005-11-30T00:05} <file>.pl
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r17 | dgale | 2005-11-11 09:48:08 -0500 (Fri, 11 Nov 2005)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r18 | dgale | 2005-11-23 10:04:04 -0500 (Wed, 23 Nov 2005)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r25 | dgale | 2005-11-29 08:12:01 -0500 (Tue, 29 Nov 2005)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r27 | dgale | 2005-11-29 17:18:53 -0500 (Tue, 29 Nov 2005)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# The r17, which is clearly earlier than the requested range, mirrors
what Johnathan is seeing.
$ svn log -q -r{2005-11-23T00:05}:{2005-11-30T00:05} <file>.pl
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r25 | dgale | 2005-11-29 08:12:01 -0500 (Tue, 29 Nov 2005)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r27 | dgale | 2005-11-29 17:18:53 -0500 (Tue, 29 Nov 2005)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# r18 doesn't show up, despite that being the last version of the file
before the requested range.
Either I'm misunderstanding something, or one of these two commands
isn't working as expected. (I'd argue that the first command isn't
working, since "svn log -r20:30 <file>.pl" only reports revisions 25 and
28--revision 18 is out of range.)
-David
----- Message from "Nico Kadel-Garcia" <nk...@comcast.net> on Wed, 24 May
2006 08:34:02 -0400 -----
To: "Britain Crooker" <br...@fifthorder.com>,
<us...@subversion.tigris.org>
Subjec Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Repos on Linux (RH9), want to
t: view offline on Windows
Britain Crooker wrote:
> Using SVN 1.3.1, I have a server (using the svnserver, not WebDAV)
> running on our main server, which works great. Clients are all
> Windows users using TortoiseSVN.
>
> I do daily backups of the repositories (using the hotcopy command)
> which I am able to restore on the linux server and access fine, so
> they seem valid. If I take the same backup (which was compressed to a
> tar.gz file after the hotcopy) and extract it on my laptop, I am
> unable to browse it with Tortoise or with the SVN command line tools.
> They complain about "Unable to open an ra_lcoal session to URL" and
> that FSFS is an unknown file type.
>
> I had thought that FSFS was supposed to be platform independent, so I
> figured what I was trying to do should be possible.
>
> I would really like to be able to copy the repositories onto my
> laptop so that when I am traveling, or otherwise disconnected from
> the internet, I can browse the source history.
Hmm. Does it work if you do a simple "svnadmin create" on the Windows
server, just to make sure that other things are working?
----- Message from "Britain Crooker" <br...@fifthorder.com> on Wed, 24
May 2006 09:27:33 -0400 -----
To: "'Nico Kadel-Garcia'" <nk...@comcast.net>,
<us...@subversion.tigris.org>
Subjec RE: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Repos on Linux (RH9), want to
t: view offline on Windows
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nico Kadel-Garcia [mailto:nkadel@comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:34 AM
> To: Britain Crooker; users@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: WARNING(virus check bypassed): Repos on Linux
> (RH9), want to view offline on Windows
>
> Britain Crooker wrote:
> > Using SVN 1.3.1, I have a server (using the svnserver, not WebDAV)
> > running on our main server, which works great. Clients are all
> > Windows users using TortoiseSVN.
> >
> > I do daily backups of the repositories (using the hotcopy command)
> > which I am able to restore on the linux server and access fine, so
> > they seem valid. If I take the same backup (which was
> compressed to a
> > tar.gz file after the hotcopy) and extract it on my laptop, I am
> > unable to browse it with Tortoise or with the SVN command
> line tools.
> > They complain about "Unable to open an ra_lcoal session to URL" and
> > that FSFS is an unknown file type.
> >
> > I had thought that FSFS was supposed to be platform
> independent, so I
> > figured what I was trying to do should be possible.
> >
> > I would really like to be able to copy the repositories
> onto my laptop
> > so that when I am traveling, or otherwise disconnected from the
> > internet, I can browse the source history.
>
> Hmm. Does it work if you do a simple "svnadmin create" on the
> Windows server, just to make sure that other things are working?
>
>
I have tried to create a new FSFS repository, both with the svnadmin
command
and via the TortoiseSVN interface, both work fine (in fact I created the
current FSFS repositories on my Windows laptop because they were initially
in the BDB format and had to be switched over to FSFS because our RH9
didn't
support the right version of BDB. So I did a dump and load to switch
formats, and then copied the resulting files up to the Linux box).
----- Message from "Nico Kadel-Garcia" <nk...@comcast.net> on Wed, 24 May
2006 08:35:23 -0400 -----
To: "Senthil Kumarasamy" <Se...@relayhealth.com>,
<us...@subversion.tigris.org>
Subjec Re: Question about svn lock
t:
If you need to lock entire directories, you might want to seriously look
into doing user access control for it. svnperms.py and svnperms.conf are
good examples of how to do that.
----- Original Message -----
From: Senthil Kumarasamy
To: users@subversion.tigris.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:54 PM
Subject: Question about svn lock
Is it possible to lock entire directory using sn lock?
Thanks
Senthil
----- Message from "Jeff Jensen" <je...@upstairstechnology.com> on
Wed, 24 May 2006 08:20:25 -0500 -----
To: <us...@subversion.tigris.org>
Subject: RE: More debug info options than "neon-debug-mask = 130"?
For the archives, this MS KB article and patch was needed to solve our ISA
problem:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304340/en-us
So there is a bug in the 2000 version of ISA that it fixes. There wasn't
anything configurable that was blocking the requests.
Thank you again for the big help in tracking this down.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Jensen [mailto:jeffjensen@upstairstechnology.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 9:56 PM
> To: 'Garrett Rooney'
> Cc: users@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: RE: More debug info options than "neon-debug-mask = 130"?
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rooneg@gmail.com [mailto:rooneg@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of Garrett
> > Rooney
> > Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 9:33 PM
> > To: Jeff Jensen
> > Cc: users@subversion.tigris.org
> > Subject: Re: More debug info options than "neon-debug-mask = 130"?
> >
> > On 5/22/06, Jeff Jensen <je...@upstairstechnology.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Before we blame ISA, does this test also prove that
> nothing on the
> > > Linux server hosting svn is blocking too, or did this
> > tunnel blow by
> > > any of that too?
> >
> > Unless there's a really weird firewall running on your server, I'd
> > suspect that the ISA proxy is your problem.
>
> Thanks a ton for your help! Very much appreciated and needed.
> (Now to determine what to change on ISA. I couldn't see
> today how it was blocking anything!)
----- Message from "Shankaramurthy, Nagaraj"
<Na...@acs-inc.com> on Wed, 24 May 2006 08:11:30 -0500
-----
To: users@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: Import Option Using Subversion
Hi All,
I am trying to import a folder on C:\ with name _Development to SVN
Repository. The Size of folder is nearly 5GB with 39,931 Files and 2244
folders.
Steps I followed to import the folder:
Right Click on the Folder à Select TortoiseSVN à Goto Import à Select
Subversion Repository and Click on OK.
After Importing 30 to 50MB of data Subversion crashes and fails to import
the folder contents. Even, apache server fails and needs to be restarted.
Is there any other method to importing a large folder structure to
Subversion?
Please let me know.
Thanks and Regards,
Nagaraj S
----- Message from Ryan Schmidt <su...@ryandesign.com> on Wed,
24 May 2006 16:46:06 +0200 -----
To: "Shankaramurthy, Nagaraj" <Na...@acs-inc.com>
cc: users@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: Re: Import Option Using Subversion
On May 24, 2006, at 15:11, Shankaramurthy, Nagaraj wrote:
> Is there any other method to importing a large folder structure to
> Subversion?
Yes, there is the so-called "in-place import":
http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html#in-place-import
----- Message from "CLAYTON LUIZ DE ANDRADE" <cl...@agraria.com.br> on
Wed, 24 May 2006 10:11:28 -0300 -----
To: <us...@subversion.tigris.org>
Subject: problem with setting up the httpd.conf file
Hi all,
I am using Apache 2.2.2 server and install Subversion 1.3.1 under Windowx
XP SP2.
When I put all recommended modifications (httpd.conf)
like:
LoadModule dav_module modules/mod_dav.so
LoadModule dav_svn_module modules/mod_dav_svn.so
LoadModule dav_fs_module modules/mod_dav_fs.so
and try re-start the Apache Server the following error appears:
httpd.exe: Syntax error on line 85 of C:/Arquivos de programas/Apache
Software F
oundation/Apache2.2/conf/httpd.conf: API module structure `dav_svn_module'
in fi
le C:/Arquivos de programas/Apache Software
Foundation/Apache2.2/modules/mod_dav
_svn.so is garbled - perhaps this is not an Apache module DSO?
Note the errors or messages above, and press the <ESC> key to exit.
Please, help me.
Clayton Luiz de Andrade
Analista de Sistemas - Dept. de Informática Cooperativa Agrária Mista Entre Rios Ltda
Fone: (42) 3625-8107
claytonl@agraria.com.br
Visite: www.agraria.com.br
----- Message from "Edward Bosco" <eb...@prologic-inc.com> on Wed, 24 May
2006 10:30:01 -0400 -----
To: "CLAYTON LUIZ DE ANDRADE" <cl...@agraria.com.br>,
<us...@subversion.tigris.org>
Subjec RE: problem with setting up the httpd.conf file
t:
Clayton -
I don't believe that Apache 2.2.2 has support yet for the mod_dav_svn
module.