On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:37:49 -0600
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote these words on 01/07/06 13:26 CST:
> > I noticed that this switch is in the LFS book for BerkyDB, I haven't
> > built that for some time (when something says it needs a DB that I'm
> > testing).
> >
> > Does Man-DB need this? I'm amazed if it does - the rationale for
> > using it is that it's maintained and modern and handles all sorts of
> > UTF-8 stuff. And we are only putting BDB in for Man-DB.
>
> <Not arguing against Richard's case, just making my opinion known>
>
> I think the --compat-1.85 should stay. BDB is updated so often and
> so many packages need to look for specific versions (BDB-3, BDB-4.1,
> BDB-4.2, BDB-4.3 and now BDB-4.4), but then many will fall back to
> the plain old BDB (libdb.so and not libdb-x.x.so) with the 1.85
> compatibility and it works.
>
> What is the harm in retaining it?
>
> </not arguing>
>
Good points. I wouldn't see that as I only build it occasionally and
then for a specific package. As it happens, until Man-DB came on the
scene (for me about 3 hours ago when I reviewed gmane.linux.lfs-devel)
nothing I ever built that REQUIRED BDB stayed on the system long :-)
Although this is an argument for having it in BLFS, I'm not sure about
LFS where BDB's extra libs are bloat.
Now, I have to say that having built it, man-DB works very well, and
produces very nice readable pages fast. I don't know if it's connected,
but a longstanding problem with xman rendering seems to have
dissappeared too.
R.
{Randy not arguing? He must be ill.}
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
