This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Fwd: Subversion packages

On 2013-11-18 12:35, David Rothenberger wrote:
Kevin Connor Arpe wrote:
I was thinking about this type of SVN package setup:
* 1.6.x (svn_1.6)
* 1.7.x (svn_1.7)
* 1.8.x (svn_1.8)
* svn (latest -- currently svn_1.8)

I could create statically linked binaries that can live side-by-side,
e.g., /usr/bin/svn1.6, svn1.7, svn1.8 and plain old "svn" which is the

I'm strongly against statically linking the binaries. It produces
very large binaries and will require recreating the binaries any
time a bug is fixed in any of the many dependent libraries. It also
does not address the API bindings which require DLLs to function,
for example the Perl binding used by git-svn. There is also the
Apache module to consider.

There are also a number of svn-dependent components in Ports which link against libsvn*-1, so the shared libraries cannot simply go away.

I suppose you could have a system where the versioned svn packages
provide only a statically linked binaries and none of the other
libraries, while the unversioned Subversion packages provide
dynamically linked binaries and all the libraries.

*Iff* supporting multiple versions is deemed necessary, this would be the way to go.

I know of no other Linux distribution that supports multiple
installed versions of Subversion. I don't think it's a good idea.

Me neither, but given the recent sqlite3 locking discussion, I won't be surprised if compatibility with native Windows clients trumps that.


Problem reports:
Unsubscribe info:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]