On 12/13/10, Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Am 13.12.2010 um 11:40 schrieb [email protected]: >> I filed a bug against amavisd_new >> (https://www.opencsw.org/mantis/view.php?id=4629) but I think the problem >> is that pm_berkeleydb requires updating for CSWbdb48 4.8.30. > > Ugh, I wasn't aware that the *specific* bdb version is used instead of 4.8.x > This is very bad. It may require rebuilding everything depending on 4.8: > http://www.opencsw.org/packages/berkeleydb48/ >
This is exactly why I have been against having a lot of different versions of berkeleydb in our active catalog. It makes our lives messier. Certain programs, once compiled with a specific version of it, want to *stick* with a specific version of it. So the fewer versions we have of berkeleydb, the better for us. On the brighter side, reading the bug report... it sounds like the amavisd checker is being overly .. picky. What does it care, about which .h file is installed? Unless it does actual compiling, sounds like amavisd maintainer could just rdisable the check. if it DOES do compiling... then given the current way we handle berkeleydb, sounds like right thing to do may be for amavisd to make a private copy of the header file(s). Otherwise, we'd have to making a more general-case "berkeleydb48_dev". , and have amavisd depend on that. I think that would be ugly. If more than just amavisd needs this sort of thing, maybe we have to do it. But if it's just one program, I think since it already pulls in the 4.8 version of the lib with depend on CSWberkeleydb48, that keeping the header file for itself is okay. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
