[gentoo-user] Subversion Cannot connect
I installed Gentoo + Subversion to provide the service through svnserve. But I use the TSVN client side to link the SVN service demonstrated frequently: Cannot connect, initiative rejection, prompts and so on force closure. I have closed the local firewall, the question as before. I am a beginner, I from China
Re: [gentoo-user] subversion-1.7.0 and layman
Hello, svn: E155036: Please see the 'svn upgrade' command svn: E155036: Working copy is too old. Should I downgrade subversion or just waiting till the particular layman repositorys' format will be upgraded? The problem is with your working copy, not with the repository. Subversion 1.7 uses a new format for storing metadata in working copies which is not compatible with the one used up to 1.6. You can upgrade to the new format with $ svn upgrade /var/lib/layman/overlay name Be warned, though, that there is no way to convert back to the old format -- if you decide to downgrade subversion later on you will need to delete the overlay and check it out again. andrea
[gentoo-user] subversion-1.7.0 and layman
Dear All, Yesterday my subversion has been upgraded because I have an ~amd64 system. This morning when I wanted to sync my layman repositorys I got this error message: svn: E155036: Please see the 'svn upgrade' command svn: E155036: Working copy is too old. Should I downgrade subversion or just waiting till the particular layman repositorys' format will be upgraded? Thanks in advance! András -- - - -- Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando) -- http://sayusi.hu -- http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi -- Trust in God and keep your gunpowder dry! - Cromwell
[gentoo-user] subversion ebuild problem
I'm using layman to pull in the je_fro overlay and I'm getting this: Unpacking source... * subversion switch start -- * old repository: http://svn.madwifi.org/madwifi/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * new repository: http://svn.madwifi-project.org/madwifi/trunk svn: 'http://svn.madwifi.org/madwifi/trunk' is not the same repository as 'http://svn.madwifi-project.org' * * ERROR: net-wireless/madwifi-ng-svn- failed. Is there anything I can do about this or does the ebuild need to be fixed? Does anyone know how to contact je_fro? - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] subversion ebuild problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Grant wrote: I'm using layman to pull in the je_fro overlay and I'm getting this: Unpacking source... * subversion switch start -- * old repository: http://svn.madwifi.org/madwifi/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * new repository: http://svn.madwifi-project.org/madwifi/trunk svn: 'http://svn.madwifi.org/madwifi/trunk' is not the same repository as 'http://svn.madwifi-project.org' * * ERROR: net-wireless/madwifi-ng-svn- failed. Is there anything I can do about this or does the ebuild need to be fixed? Does anyone know how to contact je_fro? - Grant Hi, try removing the old working copy from /usr/portage/distfiles/svn-src -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkk5TdcACgkQ6pa1H/H5pqWYlgCfU5nYJBvhRxJp/KOVWEB5uiQC EacAn3YAIIDiIX6FFxEn2Uv299WLWU3g =ky38 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-user] subversion ebuild problem
I'm using layman to pull in the je_fro overlay and I'm getting this: Unpacking source... * subversion switch start -- * old repository: http://svn.madwifi.org/madwifi/[EMAIL PROTECTED] * new repository: http://svn.madwifi-project.org/madwifi/trunk svn: 'http://svn.madwifi.org/madwifi/trunk' is not the same repository as 'http://svn.madwifi-project.org' * * ERROR: net-wireless/madwifi-ng-svn- failed. Is there anything I can do about this or does the ebuild need to be fixed? Does anyone know how to contact je_fro? - Grant Hi, try removing the old working copy from /usr/portage/distfiles/svn-src That fixed it, thank you very much. - Grant
[gentoo-user] Subversion broken
Suddenly (at least I don't know since when it doesn't work) I get this error whenever I use svn: svn: Failed to find label 'NULL' for URL '/svnroot/arcon/trunk/overlay' svn: Failed to find label 'NULL' for URL '/svnroot/arcon/trunk/overlay' Subversion (1.5.4) is build with USE:-apache2 -bash-completion -berkdb -debug -doc -dso -emacs -extras -java -nls -perl -python -ruby -sasl vim-syntax webdav-neon -webdav-serf CFLAGS=-march=native -pipe -Os -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-ident -w -fno-strict-aliasing and gcc 4.3. I've searched the web but couldn't find anything useful. -Erik -- v4sw5RUYhw2ln3pr5ck0ma2u7Lw3+2Xm0l6/7Gi2e2t3b6AKMen5+7a16s0Sr1p-5.62/-6.56g6OR
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion emerge fails
hmm, probably a) broken ebuild (missing bdb dep) b) broken ./configure script (which can't find existing bdb) cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ For now I masked the version of subversion giving the problems, I only occasionally use subversion on that machine. I would however like to contribute if it's something useful. Should I log a bug for this, or wouldn't there be many people trying to emerge subversion with berkly db support? Regards Dirk -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion emerge fails
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:17:44 +0200 Dirk Uys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hmm, probably a) broken ebuild (missing bdb dep) b) broken ./configure script (which can't find existing bdb) cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ For now I masked the version of subversion giving the problems, I only occasionally use subversion on that machine. I would however like to contribute if it's something useful. Should I log a bug for this, or wouldn't there be many people trying to emerge subversion with berkly db support? Regards Dirk Sure, post it. It's clearly a bug. Every little piece helps :) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion emerge fails
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Florian Philipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:17:44 +0200 Dirk Uys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For now I masked the version of subversion giving the problems, I only occasionally use subversion on that machine. I would however like to contribute if it's something useful. Should I log a bug for this, or wouldn't there be many people trying to emerge subversion with berkly db support? Regards Dirk Sure, post it. It's clearly a bug. Every little piece helps :) The bug is already filed (221185). Turns out you have to emerge apr-utils. Next time I'll check bugzilla first. So much for filing my first bug. Regards Dirk -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion emerge fails
* Dirk Uys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone. When I emerge subversion, i get the following error: snip checking for availability of Berkeley DB... no configure: error: Berkeley DB 4.0.14 wasn't found. hmm, probably a) broken ebuild (missing bdb dep) b) broken ./configure script (which can't find existing bdb) cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ - Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ - -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion emerge fails
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 12:52:03 +0200
Dirk Uys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everyone.
When I emerge subversion, i get the following error:
snip
checking for availability of Berkeley DB... no
configure: error: Berkeley DB 4.0.14 wasn't found.
!!! Please attach the following file when seeking support:
!!!
/var/tmp/portage/dev-util/subversion-1.5.0_rc5/work/subversion-1.5.0-rc5/config.log
*
* ERROR: dev-util/subversion-1.5.0_rc5 failed.
...
/snip
Here is the output of eix sys-libs/db:
snip
[D] sys-libs/db
Available versions:
(1) *1.85-r1 1.85-r3
(3) 3.2.9-r11
(4.2) 4.2.52_p4-r2
(4.3) 4.3.29-r2
(4.4) (~)4.4.20_p4
(4.5) 4.5.20_p2
(4.6) (~)4.6.19 (~)4.6.21
{bootstrap doc elibc_FreeBSD java nocxx tcl test}
Installed versions: 4.3.29-r2(4.3)(02:52:26 04/20/07)(-bootstrap
-doc -elibc_FreeBSD -java -nocxx -tcl -test)
4.5.20_p2(4.5)(22:43:07 04/14/08)(-bootstrap
-doc -elibc_FreeBSD -java -nocxx -tcl -test)
4.6.21_p1(4.6)(20:12:09 06/07/08)(-bootstrap
-doc -elibc_FreeBSD -java -nocxx -tcl -test)
Homepage:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/berkeley-db/index.html
Description: Oracle Berkeley DB
/snip
I'm running ~x86, so I don't expect things to always work. Is this a
bug, or is there something else wrong?
Regards
Dirk
Why don't you just disable the berkdb USE-flag? The usage of
subversion's database backend is discouraged anyway (for most use
cases).
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] Subversion emerge fails
Hi everyone.
When I emerge subversion, i get the following error:
snip
checking for availability of Berkeley DB... no
configure: error: Berkeley DB 4.0.14 wasn't found.
!!! Please attach the following file when seeking support:
!!!
/var/tmp/portage/dev-util/subversion-1.5.0_rc5/work/subversion-1.5.0-rc5/config.log
*
* ERROR: dev-util/subversion-1.5.0_rc5 failed.
...
/snip
Here is the output of eix sys-libs/db:
snip
[D] sys-libs/db
Available versions:
(1) *1.85-r1 1.85-r3
(3) 3.2.9-r11
(4.2) 4.2.52_p4-r2
(4.3) 4.3.29-r2
(4.4) (~)4.4.20_p4
(4.5) 4.5.20_p2
(4.6) (~)4.6.19 (~)4.6.21
{bootstrap doc elibc_FreeBSD java nocxx tcl test}
Installed versions: 4.3.29-r2(4.3)(02:52:26 04/20/07)(-bootstrap
-doc -elibc_FreeBSD -java -nocxx -tcl -test)
4.5.20_p2(4.5)(22:43:07 04/14/08)(-bootstrap
-doc -elibc_FreeBSD -java -nocxx -tcl -test)
4.6.21_p1(4.6)(20:12:09 06/07/08)(-bootstrap
-doc -elibc_FreeBSD -java -nocxx -tcl -test)
Homepage:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/berkeley-db/index.html
Description: Oracle Berkeley DB
/snip
I'm running ~x86, so I don't expect things to always work. Is this a
bug, or is there something else wrong?
Regards
Dirk
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.4.3
On Monday 30 April 2007, Johannes Skov Frandsen wrote: Hi I have currently installed version 1.3.2-r3 of subversion, but I have installed th latest version of subclipse (svn plugin for the eclipse platform), and now I can't use svn from the shell. I get svn: This client is too old to work with working copy '.'; please get a newer Subversion client no matter what command i run. I guess I have to upgrade to a new version of svn, but how do I explain emerge that I want the 1.4.3 version? runing: emerge -va subversion only allows me to reinstall version 1.3.2-r3 Try ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~arch emerge subversion Replace arch with your architecture: x86, amd64, whatever... This is only temporary, next time you'll update world it'l revert to 1.3.2. To make it permanent, untill 1.4.3 goes stable, add this line to /etc/portage/package.keywords dev-util/subversion ~x86 Regards Joe -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.4.3
Nistor Andrei wrote: On Monday 30 April 2007, Johannes Skov Frandsen wrote: Hi I have currently installed version 1.3.2-r3 of subversion, but I have installed th latest version of subclipse (svn plugin for the eclipse platform), and now I can't use svn from the shell. I get svn: This client is too old to work with working copy '.'; please get a newer Subversion client no matter what command i run. I guess I have to upgrade to a new version of svn, but how do I explain emerge that I want the 1.4.3 version? runing: emerge -va subversion only allows me to reinstall version 1.3.2-r3 Try ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~arch emerge subversion Replace arch with your architecture: x86, amd64, whatever... This is only temporary, next time you'll update world it'l revert to 1.3.2. To make it permanent, untill 1.4.3 goes stable, add this line to /etc/portage/package.keywords dev-util/subversion ~x86 Regards Joe Thanks... that was all that was needed... everything works nicely again. Joe -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] subversion client too old (?)
on Sunday 02/11/2007 Bo Ørsted Andresen([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote On Saturday 10 February 2007 15:28:14 John covici wrote: Hi. I am having a strange subversion problem. I think it stems from the fact that I boot into two different systems, one has subversion 1.4.0and the gentoo system has 1.3.2 and when the 1.3.2 client touches something checked out by the 1.4.0 version, it complains -- does seem to work. However is there any way to update the gentoo version -- I did a --sync and searched for subversion but no joy -- just the 1.3.2 one. Any assistance would be appreciated. echo ~dev-util/subversion-1.4.0 /etc/portage/package.keywords http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=3chap=3#doc_chap2 But would I not get that version when I do emerge -S subversion that search yields only the 1.3.2, so I thought there was no later one. I did a find /usr/portage -name '*subversion*' and sure enough there a 1.4.2 ebuild, but the search did not show it. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] subversion client too old (?)
On Sunday 11 February 2007 11:00:15 John covici wrote: But would I not get that version when I do emerge -S subversion that search yields only the 1.3.2, so I thought there was no later one. I did a find /usr/portage -name '*subversion*' and sure enough there a 1.4.2 ebuild, but the search did not show it. Which is one of the reasons why most of us use app-portage/eix instead of emerge -s/S to search for packages... -- Bo Andresen pgp92r7hqBTwG.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] subversion client too old (?)
Hi. I am having a strange subversion problem. I think it stems from the fact that I boot into two different systems, one has subversion 1.4.0and the gentoo system has 1.3.2 and when the 1.3.2 client touches something checked out by the 1.4.0 version, it complains -- does seem to work. However is there any way to update the gentoo version -- I did a --sync and searched for subversion but no joy -- just the 1.3.2 one. Any assistance would be appreciated. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] subversion client too old (?)
On Saturday 10 February 2007 15:28:14 John covici wrote: Hi. I am having a strange subversion problem. I think it stems from the fact that I boot into two different systems, one has subversion 1.4.0and the gentoo system has 1.3.2 and when the 1.3.2 client touches something checked out by the 1.4.0 version, it complains -- does seem to work. However is there any way to update the gentoo version -- I did a --sync and searched for subversion but no joy -- just the 1.3.2 one. Any assistance would be appreciated. echo ~dev-util/subversion-1.4.0 /etc/portage/package.keywords http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=3chap=3#doc_chap2 -- Bo Andresen pgpOn8M2AwTEa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] subversion 1.4.x still 'unstable'
On Friday 10 November 2006 05:09, Daevid Vincent wrote: The problem I'm running into is that I use the TortoiseSVN 1.4.x on my winXP box which is mounting via samba my SVN checkout on the linux box. That has 1.3.1 on it. When I try to do any svn commands from the command line on linux, it tells me my version is too old. Why don't you just checkout a fresh copy on your XP box? It's not like you can't work on two different working copies at the same time. -- Mike Williams -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] subversion 1.4.x still 'unstable'
I see on the tigris site that 1.4.2 is the latest version, but portage shows 1.40 as the latest ebuild (which is also ~x86). http://packages.gentoo.org/search/?sstring=subversion The problem I'm running into is that I use the TortoiseSVN 1.4.x on my winXP box which is mounting via samba my SVN checkout on the linux box. That has 1.3.1 on it. When I try to do any svn commands from the command line on linux, it tells me my version is too old. So... Anyone using the masked 1.4.0 ebuild? How is it? Any ideas on when it might be marked stable? Usually it's like 30 days or so right, and this seems to be in there for over 60 days now... And what about a 1.4.2 ebuild? http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/gentoo-x86/dev-util/subversi on/ChangeLog 08 Sep 2006; Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] +files/subversion-1.4-db4.patch, +subversion-1.4.0.ebuild: A new upstream major version. This version introduces a number of big changes. The most significant is that there is a new working copy format that is transparently updated. It can however not transparently downgrade! -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] subversion
Anybody have any idea when subversion 1.3 will available as an ebuild? -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] subversion
On 2006-03-15 00:47, David Corbin uttered these thoughts: Anybody have any idea when subversion 1.3 will available as an ebuild? It is... Marked testing on most architectures it seems. If you want it, read man portage and look for package.keywords Regards, Patrick Börjesson -- / () The ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against HTML Email \ /\ and proprietary formats. pgpYY7mw6fIL4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2
Holly Bostick wrote: The thing is Portage doesn't *remember* ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, beyond the original compile in which it is used. So if you use it, and keep the package, as soon as you do an emerge -u world, Portage will try to downgrade the package to the last stable version, which is the only one that it knows to be allowed (because /etc/make.conf says xarch, not ~arch, and no exception for this particular package and its dependencies has been made in /etc/portage/package.keywords). OK - now using package.keywords make far more sense to me. I'd always assumed (wrongly I guess) that emerge -u would only upgrade and never downgrade... Now I see why I'd need the entry in package.keywords. It's a beautiful system :-) . I'm closer to believing you. :-) The only way in which I'm not yet as convinced as you are is with respect to dependencies. I'm comfortable with the idea that I browse the bugs to verify that none of the issues affect my install directly - then to accept an unstable version of a specific package... but I'd prefer not to have to dig out the package dependencies and explicitly allow the unstable branch for those packages too (as seems to have been indicated earlier in this thread.) Is there a simple way to say, for example, I'm willing to accept the unstable version of Subversion-1.2.1, and (naturally) the unstable version of any package on which Suversion-1.2.1 depends? It was my wish to side-step explicitly dealing with package dependencies which prompted me to use ACCEPT_KEYWORDS with emerge -uD ... Steve -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2
Steve [Gentoo] wrote: The only way in which I'm not yet as convinced as you are is with respect to dependencies. I'm comfortable with the idea that I browse the bugs to verify that none of the issues affect my install directly - then to accept an unstable version of a specific package... but I'd prefer not to have to dig out the package dependencies and explicitly allow the unstable branch for those packages too (as seems to have been indicated earlier in this thread.) Is there a simple way to say, for example, I'm willing to accept the unstable version of Subversion-1.2.1, and (naturally) the unstable version of any package on which Suversion-1.2.1 depends? It was my wish to side-step explicitly dealing with package dependencies which prompted me to use ACCEPT_KEYWORDS with emerge -uD ... Steve Roy has created a perl script called unmask.pl which automatically unmasks keyword masked dependencies: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-userm=111472741321054 Zac -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2
I'd have thought lots of people in the gentoo crowd would have been eagerly awaiting subversion 1.2.x with its substantial new reserved checkout - but nothing seems to have moved forward. Portage (by default) still gives me version 1.1.3... but version 1.2 has been available for a couple of months and 1.2.1 a fortnight... I wouldn't have considered this a difficult package to port to Gentoo - especially as just about every other platform is supported directly by the Subversion developers... I've tried using ~x86 as my USE flag - but the 1.2 ebuild still won't install reporting a Problem in dev-util/subversion-1.2 dependencies... I'm reluctant to use an unstable subverison port as it would cost me a fair bit of time if it scrambles my version controlled files. Does anyone know what the problems are and why its taking so long to get 1.2.x into the default portage tree? -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2
Steve [Gentoo] wrote: I'd have thought lots of people in the gentoo crowd would have been eagerly awaiting subversion 1.2.x with its substantial new reserved checkout - but nothing seems to have moved forward. Portage (by default) still gives me version 1.1.3... but version 1.2 has been available for a couple of months and 1.2.1 a fortnight... I wouldn't have considered this a difficult package to port to Gentoo - especially as just about every other platform is supported directly by the Subversion developers... I've tried using ~x86 as my USE flag - but the 1.2 ebuild still won't install reporting a Problem in dev-util/subversion-1.2 dependencies... Huh? I've been using 1.2 for awhile and emerge 1.2.1 as of yesterday. Did you add: dev-util/subversion ~x86 to your /etc/portage/package.keywords. You can just emerge subversion and keep everything else on the stable build. If you still block, send the output from: emerge -pv subversion --Kurt -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2
Steve [Gentoo] wrote: I'd have thought lots of people in the gentoo crowd would have been eagerly awaiting subversion 1.2.x with its substantial new reserved checkout - but nothing seems to have moved forward. you must have missed this link from the gentoo homepage (on the left): http://packages.gentoo.org/ a search yields this: http://packages.gentoo.org/search/?sstring=subversion also, for a command-line version, read: man equery You might also want to read up on the portage section in the gentoo handbook: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=3chap=3 sorry for such a canned answer, but i would only repeat what's been written there. I've tried using ~x86 as my USE flag - but the 1.2 ebuild still won't install reporting a Problem in dev-util/subversion-1.2 dependencies... I'm reluctant to use an unstable subverison port as it would cost me a fair bit of time if it scrambles my version controlled files. Does anyone know what the problems are and why its taking so long to get 1.2.x into the default portage tree? Don't put ~x86 in your USE flags just for that - use /etc/portage/package.keywords (see the above mentioned portage guide). I'm not exactly sure what you want - Gentoo leaves packages in unstable for a default period of time to make sure they work allright. If you want the newest version of a package, you must tell portage to do so by putting the appropriate stuff (subversion and it's dependencies) in /etc/portage/package.keywords. Here, i just did it myself by putting this in my package.keywords (create this file if it doesn't exist) : =dev-util/subversion-1.2.1 ~x86 =dev-libs/apr-util-0.9.5~x86 =dev-libs/apr-0.9.5 ~x86 You just add one package, ask portage to merge, then put in the next dependency, and so on... Tried this on amd64 (with ~amd64 instead of ~x86, naturally), it's happily compiling away... This was just info about portage, it is in no way any form of endorsement on the new version of subversion, as I haven't used it at all - and I don't know if you should be so impatient with a new version of a package that seems to be important to you and your data... Hope this helps, Marco -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2
Marco Matthies wrote: Gentoo leaves packages in unstable for a default period of time to make sure they work allright. If you want the newest version of a package, you must tell portage to do so by putting the appropriate stuff (subversion and it's dependencies) in /etc/portage/package.keywords. Hmmm - that all sounds sane, but what is this default period of time? What criteria must be met in order for a masked package (and specifically for Subversion) to become unmasked? Here, i just did it myself by putting this in my package.keywords (create this file if it doesn't exist) : =dev-util/subversion-1.2.1 ~x86 =dev-libs/apr-util-0.9.5~x86 =dev-libs/apr-0.9.5 ~x86 In one way this looks better than my fiddling with USE - however I'm reluctant to choose specific versions in a durable configuration file. Ideally I'd like to follow the natural upgrade cycle in future. Wouldn't putting those lines in my package.keywords file prevent me getting, say, version 1.3 automatically when I do an emerge -uD world in another few months? This was just info about portage, it is in no way any form of endorsement on the new version of subversion, as I haven't used it at all - and I don't know if you should be so impatient with a new version of a package that seems to be important to you and your data... I'm only impatient in so far as I'd prefer to use my gentoo server rather than some other platform. I'm already using Subversion 1.2 on other platforms and I've found no problems for my configuration so (other than possible gentoo specific issues) I'm happy to run the latest Subversion. [Disclaimer - please don't blame me if your requirements are more demanding than mine!. :-) ] Thanks for the reply - it at least convinces me that it is possible to get Subersion-1.2 installed... However, your solution raises more questions from me about Gentoo. I'm now unsure if I want to wait-out the default unstable time for packages (to minimise risk and to simplify systems management) - or if there is a more subtle way to declare that I'd like version 1.2.1 now and to have that upgraded when a future version newer than that which becomes unmasked. Am I missing some other obvious things? I found the Gentoo handbook a little opaque on the topic of masked packages... lots of info - just not the answers to the questions I was thinking. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steve [Gentoo] wrote: Hmmm - that all sounds sane, but what is this default period of time? What criteria must be met in order for a masked package (and specifically for Subversion) to become unmasked? At least a month and there can't be any major bugs reported to bugs.gentoo.org. About specifics on Subversion you need to ask its maintainer. It will stay masked as long as needed for the maintainer to become sure that the package really is stable. Ideally I'd like to follow the natural upgrade cycle in future. Wouldn't putting those lines in my package.keywords file prevent me getting, say, version 1.3 automatically when I do an emerge -uD world in another few months? No it would not. You are just changing the accepted the keywords for Subversion. Portage always chooses the latest version with accepted keywords. If just add dev-util/subversion you say that you will accept every version marked as ~x86 or you can use =dev-util/subversion-1.2.1 to only mark one version. If you don't use version numbers, you will always update to the latest version. If you lock down the version number, the next time you will update if after there is a version greater then 1.2.1, which is marked stable (x86). I'm only impatient in so far as I'd prefer to use my gentoo server rather than some other platform. I'm already using Subversion 1.2 on other platforms and I've found no problems for my configuration so (other than possible gentoo specific issues) I'm happy to run the latest Subversion. [Disclaimer - please don't blame me if your requirements are more demanding than mine!. :-) ] Gentoo is all about choice. Thanks for the reply - it at least convinces me that it is possible to get Subersion-1.2 installed... However, your solution raises more questions from me about Gentoo. I'm now unsure if I want to wait-out the default unstable time for packages (to minimise risk and to simplify systems management) - or if there is a more subtle way to declare that I'd like version 1.2.1 now and to have that upgraded when a future version newer than that which becomes unmasked. Am I missing some other obvious things? I found the Gentoo handbook a little opaque on the topic of masked packages... lots of info - just not the answers to the questions I was thinking. Hopefully I answered this. Regards, Petteri Räty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC1rBTcxLzpIGCsLQRAnfOAKCSwFJDenGWoGRiZWmvS/K67WGP9wCfZrjz tTtBWzlJKXu5kwfNJUfgwQo= =cdsY -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2
Steve [Gentoo] wrote: Hmmm - that all sounds sane, but what is this default period of time? What criteria must be met in order for a masked package (and specifically for Subversion) to become unmasked? I *think* it is something along the lines of 30 days without a bug, not 100% sure though. Here, i just did it myself by putting this in my package.keywords (create this file if it doesn't exist) : =dev-util/subversion-1.2.1 ~x86 =dev-libs/apr-util-0.9.5~x86 =dev-libs/apr-0.9.5 ~x86 In one way this looks better than my fiddling with USE - however I'm reluctant to choose specific versions in a durable configuration file. Ideally I'd like to follow the natural upgrade cycle in future. Wouldn't putting those lines in my package.keywords file prevent me getting, say, version 1.3 automatically when I do an emerge -uD world in another few months? the line: =dev-util/subversion-1.2.1 ~x86 means that you tell portage that you'll accept subversion, version 1.2.1 exactly, with a keyword of '~x86'. You can use '=' instead of '=', which means any version equal or greater than 1.2.1. the two following lines were the two dependencies i found by trying 'emerge -uD subversion'. once 1.3 or any version higher than 1.2.1 becomes stable (marked 'x86'), it will be considered by portage as well and will be merged. Hope that helps, Marco -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] subversion broken
All of my subversion repositories are broken for the second time in less than a month. I haven't even used them in about a week or more. The machine hasn't crashed, nothing I can think of that would cause a problem has occured. svn update svn: Unable to open an ra_local session to URL svn: Unable to open repository 'file:///home/svn/app1/trunk' svn: Berkeley DB error for filesystem /home/svn/app1/db while opening environment: DB_RUNRECOVERY: Fatal error, run database recovery svn: bdb: region error detected; run recovery. When I run svnadmin recover /home/svn/app1 I get this error: svnadmin recover /home/svn/app1 Repository lock acquired. Please wait; recovering the repository may take some time... *** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0x08068250 *** Aborted I already tried rebuilding apr, apr-util, apache, and subversion which was the fix last time. Still getting the same errors. Any ideas? -- Greg Donald Zend Certified Engineer http://destiney.com/ -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
