Subject: About devel/subversion...
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Julio Merino <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/19/2002 21:36:50
before the current devel/subversion was sent, I was working on my own version
of the package. I've been "incorporating" the Makefile+patches I did into the
current one because I think that my version of the package had some improvements
over the current one:
- Make the autogen.sh step optional. It is *NOT* required. It is very time
consuming and depends on python and autoconf-devel, weird.
- If you want to use autogen.sh (trough an option), let it work fine with any
python version greater than 2.0. Not hardcode 2.2 in the files.
- Use buildlinks.
I've left the option to run autogen.sh optionally because it may be useful for
debuggin purposes. Although, the result is the same (therefore, a make option
seems reasonable for this).
But now, I noticed one thing. The current devel/subversion only builds and
installs the subversion *client*. My package installed both the client and the
server. So I think it can be a good idea to split it into two packages. But wait,
it is not as easy:
- You can build the client alone, by disabling the use of db4 (which disables the
- If you build the server, the client gets also compiled, and here comes the
It can get difficult to make a subversion-client and a subversion-server package,
because both will choke :(
So my question is... before sending my changes, what should I do? Split the package
marking them as "conflict"? Incorporate the server into the package (which will make
it depend on apache)?
Thanks a lot.
HispaBSD admin - http://www.HispaBSD.org
Julio Merino <email@example.com>