I think option 3 would work best for now, unless other packages need db3.1.17 (I don't think they do). I don't think we want another db package.
> I have thought about this a little more, > Option 1) > I will make you a 3.1.17 package. You'll have to make sure it > links against libdb-3.1 not lib db3 and you'll have to add > -I%p/include/db31 to your CFLAGS (the headers will be in > db31/db3). The package will depend on db3, and only install the > 3.1 specific libs. > > Option 2) > I split the db3 package up even more ( don't really want to ), > libs,includes, bin, and doc. You could depend on the libs and > BuildDepends on the includes. This would be a nightmare of > conflicts and depends for me. > > Option 3) > same as below. > > Thoughts? > > Peter > On Monday, January 21, 2002, at 02:30 PM, Patrick Tescher wrote: > >> Yeah, I tried it with db 3.3 and 4 and configure won't run >> unless you have >> 3.1.17. It even says so in the read me. I guess I will have to follow >> Peter's advice. >> >>> Have you tried it with db 3.3 ? Are they really that incompatible? >>> If it doesn't work, I'd suggest adding db-3.1.17 as another >>> source, compiling it static, installing it in somewhere in the >>> build folder, and then linking evolution against the static lib. >>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Fink-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
