Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 14:13:30 +0100 From: Raphael Eiselstein <rabe@uugrn.org> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mutt vs db44 // Bug in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.database.mk ? Message-ID: <20130209131330.GF4018@ma.sigsys.de> In-Reply-To: <86ehgpabwi.wl%hskuhra@eumx.net> References: <20130208201503.GB4018@ma.sigsys.de> <20130208220108.GC4018@ma.sigsys.de> <86ehgpabwi.wl%hskuhra@eumx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--qp4W5+cUSnZs0RIF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 01:51:09PM +0100, Herbert J. Skuhra wrote: > Have you tried to set >=20 > # WITH_BDB_VER > # - User defined global variable to set Ber= keley DB version. > # <UNIQUENAME>_WITH_BDB_VER > # - User defined port specific variable to = set Berkeley DB > # version. > 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.=20 Is there any problem linking db44 to *any* port?=20 in /etc/make.conf I'd set=20 ----------------------- WITH_BDB_VER=3D44 ----------------------- What will fail if I do so? (recompiling all our local packages will take 12= h+ just to find out ...) Why do we have so much versions of bdb in our ports?=20 Best Regards Raphael --=20 Raphael Eiselstein <rabe@uugrn.org> http://rabe.uugrn.org/ xmpp:freibyter@gmx.de | https://www.xing.com/profile/Raphael_Eiselstein = =20 GnuPG: E7B2 1D66 3AF2 EDC7 9828 6D7A 9CDA 3E7B 10CA 9F2D =2E........|.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|.. --qp4W5+cUSnZs0RIF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlEWS3oACgkQnNo+exDKny1/KgCgnoeR1drXYQWIr+x1ZyzY8ccD hcUAn34wceAT8/GafWeeT4pQtH36C3LA =4uQ1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qp4W5+cUSnZs0RIF--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130209131330.GF4018>