On Jan 11, 2004, at 5:19 PM, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 10:00 AM +0000 1/11/04, Doug Rabson wrote:On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 00:05, Peter Jeremy wrote: > > I disagree. Andrew raised two issues (type of license and > port vs base location). The type of license is an input to > the decision as to which SCM to choose - BSD preferable ...
Subversion has a friendly BSD-ish license but it depends heavily on Sleepycat DB which doesn't. I imagine that if we do end up using it one day, it would be best managed as a port rather than part of the base system. I just don't see many people agreeing on importing subversion+db-4.2+apache2 into src/contrib...
Another way of approaching that is to say subversion is not-likely to be imported *unless* we can find an acceptable BSD-licensed database mgr to go along with it. (I do not know how much of Apache is needed. Would svn *clients* need to have apache installed, or is that only needed for machines that hold a public repository?)
Subversion servers require Berkeley DB and potentially Apache if you want to use mod_dav_svn as your server. If you don't want to use mod_dav_svn you can avoid the dependency on Apache. Subversion clients require APR (the Apache Portable Runtime) and potentially Neon (a webdav client library) if you want to use mod_dav_svn as your server.
In any event, I'm not convinced that importing Subversion into the tree is necessary even if you do want to use it. There's no real reason it can't just live in the ports tree as it does now.
-garrett
_______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
