On 25 Apr 2003 09:27:08 -0400
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> wrote:

> On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 08:00, Mark Gordon wrote:
> > Why does it install BerkleyDB 4 rather that depending on it?
> > 
> > I already have version 4 installed using the ebuild for it since I
> > am doing some development work against it (why work do a new project
> > against an earlier version?) so having it as part of subversion as
> > well seems wrong.
> 
> The problem is that db4 is still masked in portage because some
> packages won't build against it.  There's a goal of getting all
> packages in Portage db4-ready, and we're nearly at the point where
> people building a brand-new system can build a db4-only system w/o any
> real problems.

I've obviously not rebuilt any of the problem packages since installing
db4. If you want, I might be able to spend some time testing and maybe
fixing builds of some packages.

> Then we have to come up with a good way to handle the
> people who will be upgrading w/o breaking their systems.  We probably
> need somebody dedicated to working on just db4-related issues right
> now, but we don't have the resources at the moment.

I cancel my vote for unmasking it, we can't go breaking peoples boxes.

If you want anything specific looked at, then I can try to find time to
look since Berkeley DB is important for a project I'm on at work.
-- 
Mark Gordon
Paid to be a Geek & a Senior Software Developer
Currently looking for a new job commutable from Slough, Berks, U.K.
Although my email address says spamtrap, it is real and I read it.

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list