[oi-dev] 1262 Berkeley-db package
Josef 'Jeff' Sipek
jeffpc at josefsipek.net
Mon Oct 3 20:12:40 UTC 2011
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 06:06:47PM +0100, Bayard G. Bell wrote:
> A few items, as much questions as anything else:
> 1) given that you usually end up needing multiple bdbs, should the
> standard here be to embed version components into the name?
Yeah... does pkg:/database/bdb-4.8 sound better?
> 2) is there any basis for thinking that bdb should only be built for
> 32-bit support, or would we reasonably expect that 64-bit binaries would
> need to link against it?
To give credit where credit is due...I based the package name and the lack
of 64-bit build on oi-sfe. :)
I'm all for building it as both 32 and 64 bit. If that turns out
non-trivial, would anyone be opposed to getting a 32-bit build in, and then
in a separate commit adding 64-bits build?
> 3) it looks like the default behaviour for library link generation is to
> create links that look like lib<name>-<version>.so rather than
> lib<name>.so.<version>; which convention is expected for OI?
I've noticed that this is Berkeley-db's way of doing things. On a Linux
box that I have, lib<name>-<version>.so is used too.
I suppose if we include the version number in the package name, then
lib<name>.so would just work.
> 4) a lot of the content appears to be documentation; have you confirmed
> that all of it is correctly tagged with the doc facet?
> 5) I notice that there's documentation for csharp, but I wouldn't expect
> that to be applicable to our build; if that's the case, is there
> anything we can do to suppress the generation of such documentation
> (stripping out of the manifests might also be an option)?
The sfe package has it. I don't particularly care either way.
> 6) given the prevalence of bdb and how low it tends to be in the stack,
> might we also consider providing debug support? are there any standing
> rules on how that should be done?
My public GPG key can be found at
More information about the oi-dev