Re: swig and subversion

[Stephen Gardner <stephen-rhel uk org>]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Jos Vos wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 10:48:21AM -0500, Ed Wilts wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:14:03PM +0100, Stephen Gardner wrote:
> > > Just a couple of notes on this, firstly I see that the Subversion binary
> > > packages page does have a reference to a maintained set of RPMs which
> > > include RHEL3 (in fact it's whitebox-el3) but it also includes a new swig
> >           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > These two are mutually exclusive.  You're either RHEL3 or you're whitebox.
> > You can't be both.
>
> Well, Stephen was referring to a "maintained set of RPMs" and I can imagine
> a 3rd party RPM is said to be made for RHEL3, although it is built/maintained
> on a RHEL3 rebuild.

Indeed, my point was the RPMs are being kept current (ie. have a 
maintainer).

If you visit the Subversion download page you'll see it quoted as

"Whitebox Enterprise Linux 3 / Redhat Enterprise Linux 3"

beneath a Red Hat logo but the URL for the download includes 
"whitebox-el-3" and I therefore brought that to Bob's attention by 
mentioning it in my reply.

I think I'm right in saying that RHEL3 doesn't ship with Subversion so by 
using it at all they'll be a requirement to rely on non-Red Hat supplied 
code. I just like to offer options which I hope solve / aid in the 
solution of a problem. It is as always up to the individual (or their 
organisation) to decide the course they take in resolving a particular 
issue.

Stephen