Update subversion package to version 1.5. It would be nice to have an interim release with the latest rc to test while waiting for the final release since many development tools are already integrating subversion 1.5 features.
Final release is now out: http://subversion.tigris.org/svn_1.5_releasenotes.html
FYI: Eclipse just released their yearly update today, version 3.4 "Ganymede". The Subversion plugin for Eclipse, Subclipse ( http://subclipse.tigris.org/ ), has deprecated their 1.2.X tree in favour of the new 1.4.X versions, which require Subversion 1.5.X. From my initial effort, building Subversion certainly appears non-trivial (requires APR, etc), and it would be great if Fedora would supply an updated RPM!
Subclipse provides a java-only implementation (SVNKit) that doesn't require the binary javahl library, so it can be used with Fedora without problems. However, svn 1.5 (and SVNKit) automatically updates the working copy metadata making it incompatible with svn 1.4.
(In reply to comment #3) > Subclipse provides a java-only implementation (SVNKit) that doesn't require the > binary javahl library, so it can be used with Fedora without problems. SVNKit 1.2.0 is still in beta and I've experienced at least one problem with it that worked fine with javahl 1.5.0.
Created attachment 310725 [details] Diff to Spec file (Revision 1.112) Attaching a patch that gets subversion 1.5.0 built on F8 w/o any issue. (testing F9 shortly) Changes: Changed patch to svn_load_dirs contrib code included svnmerge contrib code (along with migration script) include wcgrep Included patch (will attach next) that fixes javahl building on GCJ. Reference bug: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=219959
Created attachment 310727 [details] JavaHL patch for building on GCJ
Ah, thanks Eddie! javahl seems to build fine with OpenJDK so I switched to BuildRequire that. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=54536
Shouldn't that be BuildRequires: java-devel [>= specific_version] BuildRequires: jpackage-utils Requires: java >= specific_version Requires: jpackage-utils as per Java packaging guidelines?
Thomas, well this is one of those things where, yes it requires a certain java version to build (so that *good* version of javah is available to generate the headers), but it'll run on older versions of java. Joe, Will there be a package update for F9 (or maybe F8)? the main issue I see with that is rapidSVN, and subclipse would need to be updated/recompiled. Plus many other subversion lib dependent apps. It sucks that they changed the WC format again.
Thomas: I don't see why jpackage-utils is required for -javahl. Eddie: w.r.t. F9/F8 updates, I'm undecided. The WC format change may badly break expectations for people using shared checkouts with multiple users. I'm open to persuasion here.
(In reply to comment #10) > Thomas: I don't see why jpackage-utils is required for -javahl. The guidelines say so ;) so there are reasons for sure. Currently I can only guess, but e.g. %{_datadir}/java is owned by that package.
Subversion doesn't package anything in that directory. I have no idea whether it should; patches welcome, anyway; check with whatever uses this JAR, I guess.
(In reply to comment #12) > Subversion doesn't package anything in that directory. % rpm -ql subversion-javahl-1.4.6-7.x86_64 /usr/lib64/libsvnjavahl-1.la /usr/lib64/libsvnjavahl-1.so /usr/lib64/libsvnjavahl-1.so.0 /usr/lib64/libsvnjavahl-1.so.0.0.0 /usr/share/java/svn-javahl.jar So, yes, subversion packs svn-javahl.jar in that dir. Btw, it shouldn't be packaging the .la file.
(In reply to comment #10) > I'm open to persuasion here. If Subversion 1.5 required dumping the repository and reloading it, I would definitely think that updating to 1.5 in the service stream would be bad. I personally think that the automatic update it does to a working copy is fine. My working copies are always private (not shared). To me it seems weird to share a working copy, but maybe others have good reasons for it.
I agree with comment #14. Even for cases where users are sharing a checkout, it would also be fine if they're relying on the packaged subversion that got upgraded to 1.5. So, it seems like the number of users who could be negatively affected is small.
OK, thanks for the feedback, folks. I've fired of an F-9 build and will do the bodhi dance soon. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=700859
Thanks. I installed the packages from koji on a Fedora 9 machine and things seem to be working fine here (command-line and javahl through Eclipse).
Joe, does this mean a svn 1.5 update will make its way out for FC8 as well? Thanks!
subversion-1.5.0-8.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9
subversion-1.5.0-8.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update subversion'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-6536
1.5.1 is now in updates-testing - please test and give feedback via the bodhi link. Feedback is needed from Subcommander and Rapidsvn users particularly.
subversion-1.5.2-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update subversion'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-6536
*** Bug 462665 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This message is a reminder that Fedora 9 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 9. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '9'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 9's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 9 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Fedora 9 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-07-10. Fedora 9 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.