* Alasdair Lumsden <[email protected]> [2011-10-05 01:31]: > > On 3 Oct 2011, at 23:31, 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. > > That's an important point. > > That presumably means drop: > > link path=usr/lib/libdb-4.so target=libdb-4.8.so > link path=usr/lib/libdb.so target=libdb-4.8.so
You should have those links at least for the "default version" so the linker finds it when passed -ldb. -- Guido Berhoerster _______________________________________________ oi-dev mailing list [email protected] http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
