From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 24 16:30:56 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE3316A4CE; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:30:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail-yellow.research.att.com (mail-dark.research.att.com [192.20.225.112]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D869543D62; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:30:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from fenner@research.att.com) Received: from windsor.research.att.com (windsor.research.att.com [135.207.26.46]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49178A7BF4; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:30:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from fenner@localhost) by windsor.research.att.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.8.5) id i9OGUsF08010; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:30:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200410241630.i9OGUsF08010@windsor.research.att.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII To: clsung@FreeBSD.org References: <6FC9F9894A9F8C49A722CF9F2132FC22021E005B@ms05.mailstreet2003.net> <20041020062653.GA8027@FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw> <200410232056.i9NKuKt24614@windsor.research.att.com> <20041024045122.GA20015@FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw> <20041024145529.GA67989@FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:30:53 -0700 From: Bill Fenner Versions: dmail (solaris) 2.6d/makemail 2.10 cc: ports@FreeBSD.org cc: chris@sigd.net cc: drosih@rpi.edu Subject: Re: Ports: devel/svn dies at devel/apr X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:30:56 -0000 > I think it (ports version) should works fine. > On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 09:43:34PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > That web page mentions: > > > > 2. Apply the patch appended to this email (which is r10438 > > of subversion trunk, and is expected to be present in > > 1.1.0rc3 and later). My big concern is a few lines up in the page: >>That said, if you are willing to accept that svn-1.x+apr-1.x will be ABI >>incompatible with 'normal' svn-1.x, we do try to make it work. I don't know what the implications of "ABI incompatible" are, but it sounds like it's possible that a port upgrade from 1.0.8+apr0.9 to 1.1.1+apr-1.0 will break someone's system. Bill