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.