svk backport

John Dong john.dong at gmail.com
Fri Aug 12 18:03:24 CDT 2005


Martin, the unit tests it failed are pretty unimportant (deals with newer 
features of SVN::Perl that are inapplicable)

Backporting the perl modules is a technical impossibility because SVN::Perl 
requires Subversion 1.2.x, which in turn requires new swig, and now you're 
getting to the point where you're pulling C libraries from Breezy with 
dependencies on 50+ unrelated Python apps.

On Friday 12 August 2005 06:52 pm, Martin Meredith wrote:
> I dont agree with getting rid of some checks... and backporting perl
> modules like SVN::Perl shouldnt really cause any problems as long as the
> whole chain is backported...
>
> John Dong wrote:
> > Dude, let's think for a bit: svk 0.29.... svk 1.00-1.... Which one is
> > much less functional? ;) No matter what kind of problems removing two of
> > 9985 Unit Checks causes, it's still DRAMATICALLY better than what Hoary
> > had to offer.
> >
> > Furthermore, "problems" would be limited to svk only, and svk users in
> > their right minds wouldn't be using 0.29, either!
> >
> >
> > Now, if you backport perl modules like SVN::Mirror, you can cause A LOT
> > of problems with compatiblity with other packages -- which is the one
> > thing Backports tries to avoid.
> >
> >
> > It's a much better idea to modify svk to build.
> >
> > On 8/12/05, *Martin Meredith* <martin at sourceguru.net
> > <mailto:martin at sourceguru.net>> wrote:
> >
> >     "Official" hoary backports have to be built from breezy... and I'm
> > sure you understand that removing version checks etc etc etc is bad, and
> > can cause major problems with stability.
> >
> >     Is it not possible and better to backport those perl modules too?
> >
> >     John Dong wrote:
> >     > I've been using svk for a couple weeks now, and I find Hoary's
> >
> >     version
> >
> >     > very inadequate. So, I backported 1.00-1 from Breezy. It's working
> >
> >     very
> >
> >     > well, and in the unofficial Backports tree.
> >     >
> >     > I'd like to see this in the official Backports tree, too. However,
> >     > there's a few build issues:
> >     >
> >     > 1) The specific versions of perl modules that it depends on cannot
> >     > be satisfied in Hoary. I removed the version checks.
> >     >
> >     > 2) About 5 unit tests fail, which forces the build to fail.
> >     > Investigating on these failures, they're for new features that want
> >     > those newer perl modules. However, these features aren't in SVK
> >     > 0.29 anyway, so it's still a HUGE improvement from Hoary!
> >     >
> >     > So, control needs to be edited, and rules needs to be edited to
> >     > remove "make test" (disable unit testing). I've used backported svk
> >     > quite a bit, with no problems at all.
> >
> >     --
> >     ubuntu-backports mailing list
> >     ubuntu-backports at lists.ubuntu.com
> >     <mailto:ubuntu-backports at lists.ubuntu.com>
> >     http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
> >     <http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports>



More information about the ubuntu-backports mailing list