subversion 0.34.0

[Bret Mogilefsky]

On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 02:22, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 07:34:19PM -0800, Bret Mogilefsky wrote:
> ...
> > I'm interested in making sure that there are widely-tested RPMs
> > available for the crucial bleeding-edge packages I rely on at work (and
> > that I'm not the only one responsible for keeping them up to date).  At
> > the moment I've just packaged subversion-0.34.0 (released today),
> > apr-0.9.5 and apr-utils-0.9.5 due to pressing needs.  I'm a little
> > worried about the community process focusing on attention to detail...
> > The subversion mod_dav_svn RPM in FC1 doesn't properly depend on httpd,
> > so the httpd 2.0.48 in testing is breaking it. 
> 
> What is breaking? I've just done some quick tests of svn 0.32.1 against
> httpd-2.0.48-1.2 and haven't found any problems.

I was going more by the BuildPrereq requirements... As of 0.33.0 svn
wants Apache 2.0.48 for the build.  I tried 0.32.1 running with httpd
2.0.48 and seemed I suddenly needed to run "svnadmin recover" on a
couple of databases very frequently (in the course of a couple of hours)
and the recovery wouldn't even complete until I shut down httpd.  I
suppose it might have been better to file a bug about that, but given
that I wanted the speed updates rolled up by the time 0.34.0 was
released, I thought it better to just go the extra distance and just do
the upgrade... That meant updating the srpm, so I did all as described.

> > Also, there's a new
> > httpd in testing, but no apr 0.9.5 and apr-utils 0.9.5... As it turns
> > out these are in the httpd tarball, but Apache.org hasn't made their
> > existence known on apr.apache.org.  So after tracking all of this down
> > and making the three RPMs, I thought I'd better make sure no one
> > duplicates the work, and if I was going to post them at all, I might as
> > well actually contribute them to the distribution now that I can. =)
> 
> Since there are no official apr{,-util} 0.9.5 releases I'd rather
> backport to 0.9.4 whatever it is in apr that the newer subversion
> releases require (I'm just checking what that is exactly).

I was a bit nervous when I saw that apr.apache.org didn't mention that
0.9.5 version had already snuck out in 2.0.48, and I agree, that is a
better solution, particularly if what's intended is to make a released
update for FC1.  But given that a 2.0.48 package was in "testing"
already I figured apr 0.9.5 might as well be getting testing at the same
time.  Once I had a reason to update apr, it seemed silly to
artificially keep the new svn on 0.9.4, especially when it involved
backporting as opposed to just compiling.  Hopefully it's worth it to
other people to do the version bump.  That's up for debate, though; I'm
just happy to have my problem resolved.  If you think backporting would
be better, I have nothing against it and the PackageRequests I submitted
to bugzilla last night (1103, 1104, 1105) can wait for FC2 either way.

I guess I don't have a good sense for what kind of changes go into
where, and how these decisions should be made... Is there a doc in the
Wiki giving advice for issues like this?  If not, then maybe there
should be...?

Thanks,
Bret
-- 
Bret Mogilefsky <mogul-fedora-devel at gelatinous.com>