subversion 0.34.0

[Joe Orton]

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 05:59:13AM -0800, Bret Mogilefsky wrote:
> 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.

You shouldn't run recovery on a repos which a running httpd is using!
That in itself is likely to do nasty things to your database:
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/html-chunk/re34.html

...
> > > 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.

It looks like 0.9.5 is not really required after all.  I've built
0.34.0-2 against 0.9.4, it should be in Raw Hide tomorrow.

Regards,

joe