Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:24:08 -0600 From: Mark Hatle <fray@...sta.com> To: xvendor@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Berkeley DB versions Andreas wrote: > 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? It just happens to work as an artifact of one version. However, very few things in our stuff use -ldb.. and we have removed usages of it in the past stop an app from using db. > 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 :) > --Mark
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the xvendor mailing list charter.
Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ