[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:47:32 -0200
From: Andreas <andreas@...ectiva.com.br>
To: xvendor@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Berkeley DB versions
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 12:08:18PM -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
> >- -ldb: many aplications rely on the concept of a "default db library". I
> >asume this is for historic reasons. I would like to get rid of this if
> >possible. Same
> >for /usr/include/db.h, which is usually a symlink to
> >/usr/include/db<version>/db.h.
> >Applications which use #include <db.h> will still build if one adjusts the
> >include
> >path, which is what I'm doing.
>
> Again that is one of the things we do. Luckily either the apps that
So, have you removed the concept of a default db library (-ldb) or does
it just work for you because you only ship one version?
I'm very tempted to remove /usr/lib/libdb.so and /usr/include/db.h and
patch any app that breaks due to this and make it use an explicit db
version.
> I doubt any of the above helps for your situation.. but rest assured you
> arn't alone in your pain.. ;)
It does help knowing that :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
xvendor mailing list charter.
