On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:40:34AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> Rechecking my test environment, 1.6.16 builds well enough on RHEL >> 5/CentOS 5 with just the version change. RHEL 6 is a *disaster*, >> partly due swig integration. (RHEL 6 finally has a recent enough swig >> and sqlite not to need the separate tarballs, but that code needs >> graceful management.) >> >> The internal ".spec" structure in >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/packages/rpm/ is also >> *very* dangerous. It replaces the user's own .rpmmacros, without >> warning and without making a backup. This is hideous behavior. I'll >> send along some patches for that ASAP. > > I agree that's hideous. > Patches to the packages are welcome. > The last serious update seems to have been in 2009. > > But have you looked at red hat's source RPMs? If RPMforge packages could > be based on those, we might as well delete our own packages/rpm/ directory. > Build scripts for most Subversion packages these days are maintained > elsewhere.
I have!!! They only came out a month or so ago as part of RHEL 5.6, and CentOS hasn't published 5.6 yet, so I've not been working with it at home. I agree there's potential there: a lot of the RPMforge weirdness was due to support for RHEL 4, which is now obsolete and only on "extended support", so a rewrite of that package is reasonable, but would take considerably longer. And RPMforge is at least 4 minor releases ahead of RHEL, and it's going to get worse over time, not better, so RPMforge is still the place to go. I'm definitely recommending yanking the http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/packages/rpm/{rhel-3,rhel-4} directories, those haven't worked in years. Let me spend a bit more time on the rhel-5 version. I think I can make that one more sane.
