[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3FDF69E8.3030404@mvista.com>
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.
