Richard A Downing wrote these words on 01/07/06 13:26 CST: > I noticed that this switch is in the LFS book for BerkyDB, I haven't > built that for some time (when something says it needs a DB that I'm > testing). > > Does Man-DB need this? I'm amazed if it does - the rationale for > using it is that it's maintained and modern and handles all sorts of > UTF-8 stuff. And we are only putting BDB in for Man-DB.
<Not arguing against Richard's case, just making my opinion known> I think the --compat-1.85 should stay. BDB is updated so often and so many packages need to look for specific versions (BDB-3, BDB-4.1, BDB-4.2, BDB-4.3 and now BDB-4.4), but then many will fall back to the plain old BDB (libdb.so and not libdb-x.x.so) with the 1.85 compatibility and it works. What is the harm in retaining it? </not arguing> -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 13:31:00 up 104 days, 22:55, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.13, 0.37 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
