Randy McMurchy wrote:
I looked at the referenced packages and have a couple of comments: 1) Surely you were able to tell that these were intentionally left in the book, especially considering how the text next to it says "(built in LFS)". Right?
Well, that was the assumption, but I was asking why.
2) Surely you agree that it needs to be there, considering that a DB is required and if there were no mention of Berkeley, users would think that they *had* to install GDBM. Right? I'm not sure I understand what the point of your message was. Help me out here. Are you trying to say with "Is there a reason for these references" that you don't understand why the references are there? Are you saying the text needs to be reworded so that it is more clear that you should install BDB, if you did not do it in LFS?
Yes, I am asking if there is a reason for it. The main reason I'm asking is because there are several other packages that stated "Berkeley DB OR GDBM" but Berkeley was still commented out - why was it left in these few packages?
Hmmm, maybe I just answered my own question...looks like it was commented out wherever it was listed as "optional"...duh...
Although, it is possible that it could be reworded...maybe since those packages that require "a database" (choice between Berkeley and GDBM), and Berkeley DB is assumed to have been installed in LFS, that means the requirement is already fulfilled, Berkeley could be removed from the "Required" list and GDBM could be moved to "Optional". Just my opinion. :)
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
