On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 at 19:27, Daniel Sahlberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Den tors 22 okt. 2026 kl 00:58 skrev Pavel Lyalyakin <[email protected] > >: > > > > Hello, > > > > While working on INSTALL, I compared the minimum dependency versions it > lists with the checks in the build systems. It appears that the checks are > inconsistent across the build systems and that some of the minimum versions > are IMHO too old to even be mentioned or checked for. > > > > So let's consider dropping minimum versions from INSTALL entirely and > rely on the build system checks. > > > > It seems that mentioning minimum versions in INSTALL is a practice from > an early era of SVN development, when it made sense and actually mattered. > The guide said exactly which versions had to be used to build SVN, and > these versions were recent at that time. BTW, some of the min versions, > like BDB 4.0.14, are exactly from that era. > > > > The situation today is quite different. Most of the minimum versions are > 10 to 25 years old: BDB 4.0.14 was released in 2001, autoconf 2.59 in 2003, > httpd 2.2 in 2005 (and it has been EOL since 2017), APR-Util 1.3 in 2008 > and APR 1.4 in 2010. So I believe that SVN has very modest minimum > requirements, and current Linux distributions, such as RHEL 8, meet all of > them out of the box. Even RHEL 7 (extended support until 2029) meets all of > the except SQLite 3.24.0 and CMake 3.20 that are new in SVN 1.15.0. > > > > INSTALL mostly duplicates the checks that are already present in the > build systems and requires additional work to be kept in sync by hand. I've > updated some of the minimum versions in INSTALL recently, but I think that > it would be best if the build systems were the single source of truth. > Hence, I'd drop the min version numbers from INSTALL. > > LGTM. Having multiple places to maintain only mean we will forget to > update some. > > +1. [...] -- Ivan Zhakov
