On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 01:23:12PM -0400, Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> On Jun 20, 2009, at 11:35 AM, Alexander Hansen <[email protected]
> > wrote:
>
> > This may be a case of bit-rot. This version of svn was able to be
> > built
> > at one point. I was able to build it on my machine, but not in a
> > stable-only situation, since I was using the unstable tree versions of
> > the dependent libraries.
> >
> > It may be worth it for us to roll the current/unstable version of svn
> > over to stable, provided that the dependencies are available.
>
> Unfortunately, libapr.0 and libaprutil.0 are needed in stable first
> before I can move svn to stable. Those are the only dependencies that
> are still needed.
>
> The old svn is definitely bitrotted and I wouldn't even try to fix it.
I'm seeing some dep breakage in things on top of libapr{,util}.0, (I'm
working on it) but the .0 stuff and things below them seem fine so
"libapr{,util}.0 and their deps" could be moved imo, especially if
they fix known breakage.
dan
--
Daniel Macks
[email protected]
http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you an open source citizen? Join us for the Open Source Bridge conference!
Portland, OR, June 17-19. Two days of sessions, one day of unconference: $250.
Need another reason to go? 24-hour hacker lounge. Register today!
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;215844324;13503038;v?http://opensourcebridge.org
_______________________________________________
Fink-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-users
