Since the release of trac 0.10 there is no longer a hard dependency on subversion as the "VC" backend. I, for example, am using the Mercurial plugin with trac to host a number of projects. As I'm sure you can imagine the gigantic size of a subversion install is a severe hindrance to users who do not wish to use trac with subversion(code review/updates/etc). Currently, there is an obvious workaround available by just using package.provided to fake subversion. Definitely isn't a solution I'd want to suggest to others though :/ A browse around the trac wiki suggests that other SCM plugins are coming soon too. This is somewhat related to Bug #109477, but trac supports plugins properly now and doesn't require any patching. Thanks, James
Created attachment 99232 [details, diff] trac-0.10-remove_hard_subversion_dep.patch This attachment removes the forced dependency on subversion, and rewrites the subversion check in pkg_setup() slightly. The pkg_setup() subversion check needs to remain because trac requires the Python bindings to work with subversion. 4 packages in the tree already use a local subversion USE flag, so there is some precedent for the naming. The subversion dependency has also been made optional on the subversion USE flag.
Created attachment 99233 [details, diff] trac-0.10-warn_subversion_dep.patch This second patch just adds a pkg_postinst() test to present a warning if the user doesn't have the subversion USE flag set but has had a previous version of trac installed[1]. I don't really think it is necessary, but when I discussed this on IRC, the issue came up. 1. Presuming that trac would be bumped to fix this
(In reply to comment #0) > Since the release of trac 0.10 there is no longer a hard dependency on > subversion as the "VC" backend. I, for example, am using the Mercurial > plugin with trac to host a number of projects. As I'm sure you can imagine > the gigantic size of a subversion install is a severe hindrance to users who > do not wish to use trac with subversion(code review/updates/etc). I fully agree and would like to see trac becoming 'free' from svn. > > A browse around the trac wiki suggests that other SCM plugins are coming > soon too. > > This is somewhat related to Bug #109477, but trac supports plugins properly > now and doesn't require any patching. What about adding 'darcs' USE flag? I see #109477 is closed, should we re-open it or 'darcs' flag can be handled via this one? Sincerely, Gour
Looks interesting. Still, I don't want to remove the subversion depedency yet, but I'll try to propose an ebuild with USE-selectable versioning system support for testing, maybe using new ebuilds for SCM plugins. Would be nice to get it ready for trac 0.11...
(In reply to comment #4) > Still, I don't want to remove the subversion depedency yet, > but I'll try to propose an ebuild with USE-selectable versioning system support > for testing, maybe using new ebuilds for SCM plugins. Just reading through some old, and open, bugs and I'm wondering if I caused some of this misunderstanding, I wasn't suggesting shipping other backends(nobody wants to start packaging all the plugins :). It is just that SVN isn't required, nor is any other SCM for that matter. In much the same way all the different databases or web servers aren't hard deps, even though support code is installed for them.
I'll add the subversion USE flag in trac-0.11+ ebuilds.
Added subversion USE flag to trac-0.11_beta1 ebuild.
