On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 at 16:52, Daniel Sahlberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Den ons 5 aug. 2026 kl 03:28 skrev Pavel Lyalyakin <[email protected]>: > >> Hello, >> >> Neither OpenSSL nor NASM is a direct dependency of SVN, so I think it >> would be better to remove them from the INSTALL guide. Their presence in >> the document is itself misleading. >> >> * OpenSSL is a dependency of Serf and httpd. If one builds them from >> source, let him follow the upstream documentation. >> * NASM is even one more step further from SVN as it's an OpenSSL >> dependency. >> * Although helpful at the time they were written, the sections are now >> misleading. The Serf+OpenSSL section demonstrates this because it has a >> TODO note that's been there for years. Moreover, the steps target pre-1.3.0 >> Serf versions, while SVN requires version 1.3.4 or newer (the steps are for >> `make`/`configure` (autotools), but Serf uses another build system starting >> with version 1.3.0[1]). >> >> If the removed info were unique, I'd rather move it into a new dedicated >> section (like "helpful tips if you are building SVN *and* its dependencies >> from source). But it's neither unique nor correct anymore. So I think that >> removal is the better solution IMHO. >> >> [1]: https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/?revision=1699146&view=revision >> >> Log message: >> >> Remove OpenSSL-related guidance because it's quite outdated and OpenSSL >> isn't >> a direct dependency of SVN. >> >> * INSTALL >> (I.B: Dependency Overview): reword the Apache Serf section and mention >> that >> serf uses OpenSSL for HTTPS, >> remove OpenSSL and NASM sections, which >> aren't >> direct dependencies of SVN. >> (I.C: Dependencies in Detail): Remove the OpenSSL section (the >> serf-focused >> part is unusable and for httpd there is >> a dedicated section in III.A), renumber >> other >> sections and references affected by this >> change. >> >> Patch by: Pavel Lyalyakin <[email protected]> >> > > Makes sense. > > I see you didn't do anything about OpenSSL in section II.E but I think > that is fine since we should remove that section shortly anyway (and if it > is inconsistent for the last release line it will ever be part of, so be > it). > Yes, I think that II.E needs a complete rewrite, so the OpenSSL part will be fixed as part of that. There is no point in removing OpenSSL from II.E in isolation without in some way or another fixing the rest of the section. Stale OpenSSL guidance isn't the main problem there. :) > Again - if you want to commit, feel free to do so. > Committed in r1936949. Thank you! > Thanks, > Daniel > > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/2jl66w1l82vn1jltwrhfql44kxf6p1hw > > > > >> -- >> With best regards, >> Pavel Lyalyakin >> > -- With best regards, Pavel Lyalyakin
