[oi-dev] 1262 Berkeley-db package
viskovatoff at imap.cc
Mon Oct 3 23:05:16 UTC 2011
On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 23:31 +0100, Bayard G. Bell wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 17:08 -0400, Alex Viskovatoff wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 16:34 -0400, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> > > Bayard made a good point, one will generally want multiple versions of
> > > bdb.
> > > Thoughts about having bdb-4.8 (and bdb-5.2)?
> > Can you or he give examples of why one would want that? It would be a
> > nuisance, because one would have to decide on some naming convention, so
> > that multiple versions could be installed together. Do Linux
> > distributions ship multiple versions of bdb?
> Ubuntu, for example, delivers libdb4.6, libdb4.7, and libdb4.8 for
> libraries. (I'm running BackTrack 5, which is based off 10.04, so this
> is a bit dated.) The distro simply doesn't deliver any links to the
> libraries, so everything has to decide which version to link against by
> both major and minor version. I've ended up with one each for the core C
> runtime because I have essentially three packages, each using a
> different version. I've seen similar things in other porting
> environments, which leads me to suspect that, if there's a nuisance
> argument, it's that, as a porting system carries more packages, it
> decides the greatest nuisance is forcing them all to use one version of
> For such reasons, I don't think there are any conventions here that need
> to be established anew.
Good. I didn't realize it was that simple to deal with this.
And this makes the existence of a bdb package in oi-sfe irrelevant,
since SFE has not addressed the issue of the need for multiple versions.
More information about the oi-dev