SCM options (was Re: Where is FreeBSD going?)

[Garrett Rooney]

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