On 23 September 2015 at 16:42, Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:danie...@apache.org] >> Sent: woensdag 23 september 2015 15:39 >> To: Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> >> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org >> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1704847 - >> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c >> >> Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 16:32:15 +0300: >> > On 23 September 2015 at 16:29, <danie...@apache.org> wrote: >> > > Author: danielsh >> > > Date: Wed Sep 23 13:29:30 2015 >> > > New Revision: 1704847 >> > > >> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1704847&view=rev >> > > Log: >> > > * subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/serf.c >> > > (ra_serf_version): Report both built- and run-time versions of > libserf, >> > > like we do for everything else. >> > > >> > May be we should report them separately only if built and runt-time >> > versions are different? >> >> We unconditionally report both versions for everything. (And I think >> that's fine.) > > Perhaps we should move the serf version to the standard list of linked > dependencies and do something smarter there. > We cannot do this, since serf is dependency of libsvn_ra_serf. The libsvn_subr doesn't link to serf or openssl directly.
What we can do is add another RA vtable member to report RA dependencies version. -- Ivan Zhakov
