Re: db linkage -- better, but still not quite right.

On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 11:06:39AM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
> Well, Kevin... so after your build-system changes last night, I was
> able to build statically again. Plain old -ldb showed up in my link
> lines.
>
> The problem: my *system* has DB 3.2 installed, as
> /usr/local/lib/libdb.so and libdb.a. This is what the linker used,
> instead of the 3.3.11 tree that was unpacked in my svn tree. This was
> deadly, because I had no idea this happened, and suddenly my binaries
> couldn't read any repositories. It took me a few minutes to figure
> out the problem. :-)
>
> So... can we make static linkage aware of the local db tree?
>
I thought it should already. The link line should be "-L$dbdir -ldb", and the
linker should use a specified library path before a system one shouldn't it?

Does your configure output include the line:
"checking for built-in Berkeley DB ...yes"?

Did you rename the 3.3.11 tree to db from db-3.3.11?

This might be beyond me, unless anyone else can see what is going on?

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kevin Pilch-Bisson                    http://www.pilch-bisson.net
     "Historically speaking, the presences of wheels in Unix
     has never precluded their reinvention." - Larry Wall
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~