On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 09:11:22AM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> that exposed this long-standing ordering problem.
>
a clarification here: the code in the bdb check is obviously completely
new. but it's a copy-and-paste job from the ipv6 check, which exists
since two years.
--
With my sincerest understanding for the frustrations of both sides, and effects
of non-native language, but:
Could we please not let the discussion slip down that road? I've seen it tried
and tried it myself enough to be quite certain it never ends well.
Thanks :)
---
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 08:58:07AM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> But the BDB detection code in configure doesn't even use -ldb??
> I.e. it does not link at all to the library.
>
yes, there was a report about the test being a tad too optimistic a few
weeks ago, so i made sure it actually tries to
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:13:53PM +, daniel szmulewicz wrote:
> I'm sorry to disappoint, but there is no such thing as Daniel's
> installation. It is a stock Ubuntu install, arguably the most common distro
> in the world. And the same inability to detect Berkeley DB arose in both
> 14.04 and 1
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:13:53PM +, daniel szmulewicz wrote:
> I'm sorry to disappoint, but there is no such thing as Daniel's
> installation. It is a stock Ubuntu install, arguably the most common distro
> in the world. And the same inability to detect Berkeley DB arose in both
> 14.04 and 1
I'm sorry to disappoint, but there is no such thing as Daniel's
installation. It is a stock Ubuntu install, arguably the most common distro
in the world. And the same inability to detect Berkeley DB arose in both
14.04 and 15.10. Nothing "weird" at all, in fact.
Detection of Berkeley passes as it s
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:13:53PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> Dependencies always had to be specified _after_ the files depending on them.
> It usually works anyway because this is only enforced for static
> libraries (so presumably for some reason the static libdb is picked
> instead of the
On 16 July 2015 09:26:33 CEST, Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 07:41:02PM +, daniel szmulewicz wrote:
>> It turns out I was right. The test passes on the command line with
>the
>> lib and the source file (conftest.c) inverted position-wise.
>> What next?
>>
>find out wheth
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 07:41:02PM +, daniel szmulewicz wrote:
> It turns out I was right. The test passes on the command line with the
> lib and the source file (conftest.c) inverted position-wise.
> What next?
>
find out whether that is a deliberate change or a bug in gnu ld.
if it's the for
Right, Oswald.
Thank you for helping me testing my assumption.
It turns out I was right. The test passes on the command line with the lib
and the source file (conftest.c) inverted position-wise.
What next?
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:42 AM Oswald Buddenhagen <
oswald.buddenha...@gmx.de> wrote:
> O
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:39:42PM +, daniel szmulewicz wrote:
> The command line in question refers to dynamically generated files
> (conftest.c), so I cannot just type in the shell:
>
config.log is supposed to contain the source of the failed program (if
it doesn't, try upgrading autoconf an
Oswald,
The command line in question refers to dynamically generated files
(conftest.c), so I cannot just type in the shell:
gcc -o conftest -g -O2 -pipe -W -Wall -Wshadow -Wstrict-prototypes -ansi
-pedantic -Wno-overlength-strings -D_GNU_SOURCE conftest.c -ldb
However, if you guide me in achi
It goes in the direction of my hypothesis.
nm -D /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libdb.so | grep db_create
00030f40 T __bam_db_create
000fa7a0 T db_create
000fa0d0 T __db_create_internal
00054810 T __ham_db_create
0006c9a0 T __heap_db_create
00075c40 T _
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:27:09PM +, daniel szmulewicz wrote:
> The config.log reveals:
>
> configure:4723: checking for Berkeley DB >= 4.1
> configure:4745: gcc -o conftest -g -O2 -pipe -W -Wall -Wshadow
> -Wstrict-prototypes -ansi -pedantic -Wno-overlength-strings -D_GNU_SOURCE
> -ldb
Yes, I have the -dev package installed.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:37 AM Chris Nehren
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 23:27:09 +, daniel szmulewicz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > While building mbsync from the git repo, I see:
> >
> > Using SSL
> > Using SASL
> > Using zlib
> > Not using Berkeley DB
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 23:27:09 +, daniel szmulewicz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While building mbsync from the git repo, I see:
>
> Using SSL
> Using SASL
> Using zlib
> Not using Berkeley DB
>
> This doesn't make sense to me as Berkeley DB is installed as far as I'm
> concerned.
> The config.log rev
Hi,
While building mbsync from the git repo, I see:
Using SSL
Using SASL
Using zlib
Not using Berkeley DB
This doesn't make sense to me as Berkeley DB is installed as far as I'm
concerned.
The config.log reveals:
configure:4723: checking for Berkeley DB >= 4.1
configure:4745: gcc -o conftest -g
17 matches
Mail list logo
