[oi-dev] 1262 Berkeley-db package
gber at openindiana.org
Wed Oct 5 09:05:55 UTC 2011
* Alasdair Lumsden <alasdairrr at gmail.com> [2011-10-05 01:31]:
> On 3 Oct 2011, at 23:31, 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
> > BDB.
> That's an important point.
> That presumably means drop:
> link path=usr/lib/libdb-4.so target=libdb-4.8.so
> link path=usr/lib/libdb.so target=libdb-4.8.so
You should have those links at least for the "default version" so
the linker finds it when passed -ldb.
More information about the oi-dev