From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 18 00:14:28 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD1A4803 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:14:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from swhetzel@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com (mail-ie0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 666F9F3C for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:14:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id c11so6697431ieb.15 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:14:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=pIKnMb15dBnAKY1wMVPz58KHMsKWVb210XnBDcmkQgE=; b=keotOAlWa98JCffRSleNT4HzXXNwylD4Xl+poI3Xzxq4Ua2AczVjaiS/l+avxf4Oll iLdrs7W5L7fLhxZyN2GF6bGIuhU38Kejq/nf5dpTEjQawJv5Iga8gKRq6OhMcLnZo2hb Yu8wZQjBmjTW0i/QolrJKkFYjoX5medMFknz6y1OUsWAl7hIOqfWhbWkCQZqEE3LMeVM NuNB9QXicd24G0v/3HV4tvbGVwg1Lbp/7I8/DyWSz4PdajFgsh8wzEr/3UbFfjc60t6E lsdk3ptXecl/k1wxhm3l2UL0e0tvVB4NEKxXqrnC1AQpft1kQy5M+WroAeOmZgQwa4ND AJiw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.194.196 with SMTP id hy4mr274254igc.106.1361146468171; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:14:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.6.82 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 16:14:28 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20130215230004.GB4056@ma.sigsys.de> References: <20130208201503.GB4018@ma.sigsys.de> <20130208220108.GC4018@ma.sigsys.de> <86ehgpabwi.wl%hskuhra@eumx.net> <20130209131330.GF4018@ma.sigsys.de> <20130215230004.GB4056@ma.sigsys.de> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:14:28 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Using just db44 for all instead of mixed usage of db41/db42/db44 (was: Re: mutt vs db44 // Bug in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.database.mk ?) From: Scot Hetzel To: Raphael Eiselstein Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:14:28 -0000 On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Raphael Eiselstein wrote: > Hi all, > > Just to get an answer to this thread: > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 02:13:30PM +0100, Raphael Eiselstein wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 01:51:09PM +0100, Herbert J. Skuhra wrote: >> > # _WITH_BDB_VER >> > in /etc/make.conf? >> havn't tried yet. But for me it makes more sens to pin all ports to the >> *same* version of BDB. > > I set WITH_BDB_HIGHEST=x in my /etc/make.conf of the build-jail. > *All* packages depending on db4x will be linked to db44 now, as this is > the highest version. > > I haven't test all binaries "in depth" but different build runds were fine > for the last couple of days and I didn't see any problems yet (libchk ...) > >> Is there any problem linking db44 to *any* port? > > I didn't see some, but ... ? > >> Why do we have so much versions of bdb in our ports? > > I guess there must be technical reasons for this. Can anyone explain? > Where are the differneces between db41, db42 and db44? Why not just > shipping db44 or higher? > The reason that there are so many BDB versions in ports is that several of the functions had additional arguments added or swapped between versions. Some ports will require either: - patching to work with latest versions of BDB - upgrade to latest source version that works with the latest version of BDB -- DISCLAIMER: No electrons were maimed while sending this message. Only slightly bruised.