Re: swiggy bdb problems.

Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> The moral of the story is: I think Mike's right. This "put bdb 4.2 in
> ld.so.conf" thing really *is* a lucky hack. I wonder if we shouldn't
> include the apr-util 'configure' patch in our 1.0.1 tarball. Someday
> apr or httpd will do another release, but in the meantime, the
> Subversion tarball really *needs* this patch. It's absurd that we're
> telling everyone to use db 4.2, yet we distribute apr-util that can't
> handle it.

+1, though I am confused that _every single time_ I "put bdb 4.2 in ld.so.conf"
it works, out of the box. It may be that I'm lucky to have chosen the right
distros (SuSE, Mandrake and FreeBSD 5.0). It may be that there is something odd
about RH9; I cannot say for sure. I would actually suspect that the
RH9-supplied Perl is probably a likely line of enquiry (since they have been
known to apply weird patches in the past).

I'll update my proposed FAQ patch with more handwaving and weasle "This has been
reported to work blah blah" and resubmit it.

John

-- 
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4720 Boston Way
Lanham, MD 20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5747
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org