Subversion 1.3.x Status Question

[Peter Samuelson]

By the way, you can reach the whole debian subversion team at once
(there are 3 of us active) at the rather daunting list address
<pkg-subversion-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org>.  I don't mind
being contacted directly, but sometimes you might get a faster answer
from Troy or Guilherme.


> I am seriously interested in knowing what is going on with Subversion
> 1.3.x (and associated packages).

It's sitting in the NEW queue (http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html)
en route to unstable.  Judging by the rest of the queue, I anticipate
it'll be there another few days, maybe another week.  The reason it's
in NEW is that we renamed one package (python2.3-subversion became
python-subversion) and added another (libsvn-doc, the library API docs
for developers).

It may not propagate to testing right away because it depends on
libneon25, which isn't in testing.  neon25 may have some problem moving
to testing because of the various other packages which haven't been
updated to depend on it yet, such as tla.  I don't anticipate any other
problems with subversion 1.3.0 getting into testing - but of course one
never knows.

I _think_ you can rebuild subversion 1.3.0 for sarge simply by
disabling java and moving from neon25 back to neon24: (a) near the top
of debian/rules, change ENABLE_JAVAHL=yes to ENABLE_JAVAHL=no; (b) in
debian/control, remove the Build-Depends on kaffe stuff and junit; (c)
also in debian/control, change the two mentions of "libneon25-dev" back
to "libneon24-dev".  The whole thing takes some 40 minutes to build, on
my machine, but that includes extensive test suites (upstream is big on
test suites), so you get some assurance that things are generally
working.

Rebuilding on testing is even easier - you don't have to disable java,
just change neon25 to neon24.

You can get the 1.3.0-2 source package (the one uploaded to unstable
and currently stuck in NEW) from http://p12n.org/tmp/svn130/ .  It is
not bit-for-bit identical to what was uploaded, since I didn't do the
upload, but the content should be the same.  It's signed with the same
key I'm using for this email, although you can't verify that it's my
key because I'm not in the global web of trust.


> I haven't used it yet also, so any thoughts there would also be
> appreciated.  Debian server, XP Clients.

I haven't noticed any flood of bug reports upstream since 1.3.0 was
released, so I assume it's working more or less as well for everyone
else as it does for me.  Not all _that_ much user-visible stuff has
changed since 1.2.3 - it's clearly the same product.


> When the call went out to ask for maintainers not long ago, I very
> seriously considered putting in my name.  Only thing that stopped me
> was reality.  Not enough hours in the day.

Heh, I know what you mean.  I'm only semi-employed at the moment, so I
have a certain amount of extra time for stuff like this.

Peter
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-subversion-maintainers/attachments/20060302/11809cff/attachment.pgp