Subversion for AIX: What do people want?

Hi People,

I've almost gotten subversion 1.5.x being compiled and built
correctly, but I've got a few questions around the lines of what do
people want/expect.

Firstly, what versions of AIX do you need? 5.1+, 5.2+, 5.3+ or 6.1
only?

Is a tarball ok, or would you prefer a bff file?

[This is the most critical]
What external dependencies are people ok with?
Currently I'm pulling in some pware dependencies (which limits me to
aix 5.3). Can I rely or require others to have this in place? Or can
I just depend on /opt/freeware? The package in question in this
instance is libintl (unless I disable NLS support).

Do I need libintl - internationalization support?

I only use subversion via HTTP, so that is a given, but to others use
it locally (file://) or via the SVN protocol?

I've (bent over backwards) to get the pware httpd working with the
current 1.4.6 subversion binaries (again, primarily libintl was the
culprit - svn looking for libintl.so.1 and pware supplying libintl.so.
8 [from memory]). What are others looking for?

Any other comments/questions etc?

TIA,

-Chris

chr...@warpspeed.com.au wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hi People,
>
> I've almost gotten subversion 1.5.x being compiled and built
> correctly, but I've got a few questions around the lines of what do
> people want/expect.[/color]

Oh, forgot to ask.

Where is a good palce to put it. The existing 1.4.6 binaries are
distributed as a tarball that is extracted into /opt/subversion.

Do people want to go over the top of that?

Or would /opt/subversion-1.5.0 be more appropriate?

That allows for future /opt/subversion-1.5.2 etc...

-Chris

[email]chrisg@warpspeed.com.au[/email] writes:[color=blue]
>Is a tarball ok, or would you prefer a bff file?[/color]

A lot of AIX sysadmins like bffs. There a package management tool
called epm that you can configure to create everything from a pkg
to a depot (including bff) for arbitrary packages...

-Mike

[email]chrisg@warpspeed.com.au[/email] schrieb:[color=blue]
> Hi People,
>
> I've almost gotten subversion 1.5.x being compiled and built
> correctly,[/color]

congratulation.
[color=blue]
> but I've got a few questions around the lines of what do
> people want/expect.
>
> Firstly, what versions of AIX do you need? 5.1+, 5.2+, 5.3+ or 6.1
> only?[/color]

from 3.2 onwards.
OK, just kidding. I guess 5.2 is still in productive use.
[color=blue]
> Is a tarball ok, or would you prefer a bff file?[/color]

Depends. The usual bin,man,lib,include directories
packed as tar.Z can be installed just everywhere,
even on a non-AIX fileserver.
The bff's OTOH are under smit control and thus
easier to install.
[color=blue]
> [This is the most critical]
> What external dependencies are people ok with?[/color]

As few as possible. None is best.
It's bad enough that for each
piece of software one has to install the whole
plethora of gnu stuff.
[color=blue]
> Currently I'm pulling in some pware dependencies (which limits me to
> aix 5.3). Can I rely or require others to have this in place?[/color]

No.
[color=blue]
> Or can
> I just depend on /opt/freeware?[/color]

This could be empty.
[color=blue]
> The package in question in this
> instance is libintl (unless I disable NLS support).
>
> Do I need libintl - internationalization support?[/color]

We code in English, don't we ?
[color=blue]
> I only use subversion via HTTP, so that is a given, but to others use
> it locally (file://) or via the SVN protocol?
>
> I've (bent over backwards) to get the pware httpd working with the
> current 1.4.6 subversion binaries (again, primarily libintl was the
> culprit - svn looking for libintl.so.1 and pware supplying libintl.so.
> 8 [from memory]). What are others looking for?
>
> Any other comments/questions etc?[/color]

Link it static, so we don't have to track down the gazillion
of .so's.
[color=blue]
> TIA,
>
> -Chris[/color]

thanks for your efforts.

On Sep 2, 10:04*am, Michael Kraemer <M.Krae...@gsi.de> wrote:[color=blue]
> chr...@warpspeed.com.au schrieb:
>[color=green]
> > I've (bent over backwards) to get the pware httpd working with the
> > current 1.4.6 subversion binaries (again, primarily libintl was the
> > culprit - svn looking for libintl.so.1 and pware supplying libintl.so.
> > 8 [from memory]). What are others looking for?[/color]
>[color=green]
> > Any other comments/questions etc?[/color]
>
> Link it static, so we don't have to track down the gazillion
> of .so's.
>[color=green]
> > TIA,[/color]
>[color=green]
> > -Chris[/color]
>
> thanks for your efforts.[/color]

Thanks. It's driven me nuts. Thank you very much for your comments.

I'll probably target 5.1 and above (if I can get the ssl stuff to
work).

I think that I have to keep it dynamic, as my primary aim is to get it
working with Apache (which is how I use it) - every thing else will
'come along with it for free' as it were.

I'll try to keep the dependencies to a minimum. There have been
changes from 1.4.6 to 1.5.x, as in 1.4.6 they included libssl whereas
with 1.5.x they don't.

Including things like that is both good and bad, and like all things
it is a tradeoff.

By including it, it allows everything to be nicely self contained.
But, they you have the issue of keeping up with updates, which is
particularly important when it comes to security software.

By not including it, I have to contend with all of the linkage issues,
but it allows the user to keep most current - so long as the ABI is
not broken.

I need to get it working. I've got it compiling, linking and running
(to some extent) currently, but without an SSL, which really, makes it
next to useless.

-Chris

On Sep 4, 1:12 am, chr...@warpspeed.com.au wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sep 2, 10:04 am, Michael Kraemer <M.Krae...@gsi.de> wrote:
>
>
>[color=green]
> > chr...@warpspeed.com.au schrieb:[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > I've (bent over backwards) to get the pware httpd working with the
> > > current 1.4.6 subversion binaries (again, primarily libintl was the
> > > culprit - svn looking for libintl.so.1 and pware supplying libintl.so.
> > > 8 [from memory]). What are others looking for?[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > Any other comments/questions etc?[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > Link it static, so we don't have to track down the gazillion
> > of .so's.[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > TIA,[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > -Chris[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > thanks for your efforts.[/color]
>
> Thanks. It's driven me nuts. Thank you very much for your comments.
>
> I'll probably target 5.1 and above (if I can get the ssl stuff to
> work).
>
> I think that I have to keep it dynamic, as my primary aim is to get it
> working with Apache (which is how I use it) - every thing else will
> 'come along with it for free' as it were.
>
> I'll try to keep the dependencies to a minimum. There have been
> changes from 1.4.6 to 1.5.x, as in 1.4.6 they included libssl whereas
> with 1.5.x they don't.
>
> Including things like that is both good and bad, and like all things
> it is a tradeoff.
>
> By including it, it allows everything to be nicely self contained.
> But, they you have the issue of keeping up with updates, which is
> particularly important when it comes to security software.
>
> By not including it, I have to contend with all of the linkage issues,
> but it allows the user to keep most current - so long as the ABI is
> not broken.
>
> I need to get it working. I've got it compiling, linking and running
> (to some extent) currently, but without an SSL, which really, makes it
> next to useless.
>
> -Chris[/color]

nice job. I gave up and created a Subversion repository on a Ubuntu
desktop. I just worked :)