xvendor - Re: Berkeley DB versions

Openwall Project		/home Owl JtR Pro crypt pam_passwdqc tcb phpass scanlogd popa3d msulogin / Linux BIND / advisories presentations / services donations / wordlists passwords / NEWS community lists Wiki CVSweb mirrors signatures
bringing security into open environments

Password Recovery Resources on the Net

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [month] [year] [list]

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

Please check out the xvendor mailing list charter.