On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 23:31 +0100, 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. > > For such reasons, I don't think there are any conventions here that need > to be established anew.
Good. I didn't realize it was that simple to deal with this. And this makes the existence of a bdb package in oi-sfe irrelevant, since SFE has not addressed the issue of the need for multiple versions. _______________________________________________ oi-dev mailing list [email protected] http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
