1 |
On Tuesday 16 January 2007 07:36, "Drew Kirkpatrick" |
2 |
<drew.kirkpatrick@×××××.com> wrote about '[gentoo-amd64] replacing |
3 |
manually installed subversion with portage version?': |
4 |
> I've got a large gentoo server at work that hosts all our subversion |
5 |
> data, |
6 |
> my boss installed subversion manually |
7 |
> instead of emerging it through portage, |
8 |
> I'd like to use the one from portage |
9 |
> so that the package is properly maintained, but I know nothing of |
10 |
> subversion. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> The data is actually stored on our raid, I would assume that simply |
13 |
> removing the version he installed and emerging subversion would dot it |
14 |
> since I believe the actual data is stored in the directory structure |
15 |
> itself. But I wanted to get a sanity check before I blow away our |
16 |
> subversion database in an uncaffeinated state :) |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Any thoughts, tips, or gotchas? |
19 |
|
20 |
All SVN data is stored inside the repository directory, so as long as you |
21 |
don't touch that you should be fine -- barring any of the |
22 |
standard "upgrade gotchas". You may need to restart your webDAV to use |
23 |
the new version of SVN. |
24 |
|
25 |
In any case, since this is a potential data-loss situation, make a backup |
26 |
or two, test your backups if possible, and if resources allow it, image |
27 |
production and perform the operation on the image first. |
28 |
|
29 |
I maintain my own SVN repository and am comfortable as a SVN user, but I |
30 |
don't consider myself an expert; if you have time I suggest you consult |
31 |
SVN-specific mailing lists as well, since it's more likely an SVN expert |
32 |
will be able to help you. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
"If there's one thing we've established over the years, |
36 |
it's that the vast majority of our users don't have the slightest |
37 |
clue what's best for them in terms of package stability." |
38 |
-- Gentoo Developer Ciaran McCreesh |