Update subversion?

Update subversion?

[Christopher Faylor]

up2date is claiming that there is a new version of subversion available.

Is it ok to update this Dan?

cgf

Re: Update subversion?

[Daniel Berlin]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> up2date is claiming that there is a new version of subversion available.
> 
> Is it ok to update this Dan?

Don't.
We're using the official rpm specs to build rpms of subversion.

We also have a few performance patches that are part of a later version
(1.4.0) in our 1.3.x build that we'd lose.

Subversion is going to release a new version (1.4.0) in a few weeks anyway.

The update is probably to 1.3.x, which is a bugfix release of the 1.3.x
series, and doesn't contain anything we really care about :)





> 
> cgf
> 

Re: Update subversion?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 11:41:19PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> up2date is claiming that there is a new version of subversion available.
>> 
>> Is it ok to update this Dan?
>
>Don't.
>We're using the official rpm specs to build rpms of subversion.
>
>We also have a few performance patches that are part of a later version
>(1.4.0) in our 1.3.x build that we'd lose.

Ok.  That's what I thought.  I probably should have known this and I probably
will be asking some variation of this question in the future.  :-)

>Subversion is going to release a new version (1.4.0) in a few weeks anyway.
>
>The update is probably to 1.3.x, which is a bugfix release of the 1.3.x
>series, and doesn't contain anything we really care about :)

Yes.

subversion                              1.3.2          0.1.el4.rf        i386  
subversion-devel                        1.3.2          0.1.el4.rf        i386  
subversion-perl                         1.3.2          0.1.el4.rf        i386  

I came >this< close to just typing "up2date -u" and just letting it churn.

I guess I'll try to fake an update without changing any files to avoid that
particular mistake.

Thanks.

cgf

Re: Update subversion?

[Daniel Berlin]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 11:41:19PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>> up2date is claiming that there is a new version of subversion available.
>>>
>>> Is it ok to update this Dan?
>> Don't.
>> We're using the official rpm specs to build rpms of subversion.
>>
>> We also have a few performance patches that are part of a later version
>> (1.4.0) in our 1.3.x build that we'd lose.
> 
> Ok.  That's what I thought.  I probably should have known this and I probably
> will be asking some variation of this question in the future.  :-)
> 
>> Subversion is going to release a new version (1.4.0) in a few weeks anyway.
>>
>> The update is probably to 1.3.x, which is a bugfix release of the 1.3.x
>> series, and doesn't contain anything we really care about :)
> 
> Yes.
> 
> subversion                              1.3.2          0.1.el4.rf        i386  
> subversion-devel                        1.3.2          0.1.el4.rf        i386  
> subversion-perl                         1.3.2          0.1.el4.rf        i386  
> 
> I came >this< close to just typing "up2date -u" and just letting it churn.
> 

It actually wouldn't hurt anything (AFAIK), it would just make our svn
stuff a bit slower.
Though i'm curious why it didn't want to update subversion-python.

Luckily, once we move to 1.4, we shouldn't have any outstanding patches
to apply to our local version.

In the future, i'll mod the rpm specs so the version info has
"sourceware" or something in the custom string so it's obvious it's not
pristine.

--Dan

Re: Update subversion?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 12:37:32AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> I came >this< close to just typing "up2date -u" and just letting it churn.
>
>It actually wouldn't hurt anything (AFAIK), it would just make our svn
>stuff a bit slower.

Yes, and then what a hue and cry there'd be.

>Though i'm curious why it didn't want to update subversion-python.

Is subversion-python available via RHEL4?

>Luckily, once we move to 1.4, we shouldn't have any outstanding patches
>to apply to our local version.
>
>In the future, i'll mod the rpm specs so the version info has
>"sourceware" or something in the custom string so it's obvious it's not
>pristine.

Ok.  That would help.

cgf

Re: Update subversion?

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi -

> up2date is claiming that there is a new version of subversion available.

When I first ran an up2date job a few days back, I excluded svn,
httpd, and clamav by hand, being unsure.  Any custom-built RPMs should
be added to /etc/sysconfig/rhn/up2date's pkgSkipList so that "up2date
-u" can deal with the rest of the system.

- FChE

Re: Update subversion?

[Christopher Faylor]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 08:45:20AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>> up2date is claiming that there is a new version of subversion available.
>
>When I first ran an up2date job a few days back, I excluded svn,
>httpd, and clamav by hand, being unsure.  Any custom-built RPMs should
>be added to /etc/sysconfig/rhn/up2date's pkgSkipList so that "up2date
>-u" can deal with the rest of the system.

httpd and clamav are both perfectly up2dateable.  I've refrained from updating
httpd until the weekend, however, just to be safe.

That does remind me, though.  I meant to ask about mod_dav_svn, too.  I assume
that should be left alone as well, right Dan?

cgf

Re: Update subversion?

[Daniel Berlin]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 08:45:20AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>>> up2date is claiming that there is a new version of subversion available.
>> When I first ran an up2date job a few days back, I excluded svn,
>> httpd, and clamav by hand, being unsure.  Any custom-built RPMs should
>> be added to /etc/sysconfig/rhn/up2date's pkgSkipList so that "up2date
>> -u" can deal with the rest of the system.
> 
> httpd and clamav are both perfectly up2dateable.  I've refrained from updating
> httpd until the weekend, however, just to be safe.
> 
> That does remind me, though.  I meant to ask about mod_dav_svn, too.  I assume
> that should be left alone as well, right Dan?
> 
> cgf
> 

Yup