On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 09:40:35AM -0800, B Harder wrote: > On 1/2/14, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > > The silly requirement of some distributions that *everything* must be a > > shared library irks me beyond words. I hate having to support > > --disable-internal-sqlite, and I hate having to add silly work-arounds in > > the code to accommodate distributions trying to use an older SQLite with a > > newer Fossil. This impedes progress and introduces bugs. It's a lose-lose > > situation. And yet the distributions are dogmatic on this point. > > > > It's maddening. It makes my hair turn gray. It irks me more than seeing > > the noun "data" used as a plural. Utter madness! > > > > But we live in a fallen world. We have to do it. Please go ahead and > > merge..... > > > > > > _WHY_ does --disable-internal-sqlite (and the unknown versions of > SQLite that follow) have to be supported ? > > If package/OS maintainers insist on hacking in alien shared-lib > SQLite, let them own their hacks and the repercussions. > > Call it a major version# bump, and remove that support. >
Actually, may be the configure script should check sqlite version that is on the system and verify for a minimum version requirement when the --disable-internal-sqlite is specified. So don't need the hack on the fossil repo. It's a kind of usual library version issue package maintainer handle time to time. -- Martin G. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
