[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: swiggy bdb problems.

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_collab.net>
Date: 2004-02-27 03:31:59 CET

On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 16:42, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:

> But whenever I try to *use* the bindings (either loading the svn modules
> into python, or running 'make test' on the perl bindings), I get errors
> about conflicts between db4.0 and 4.2.

Here's the happy ending:

After Ben Reser and I spent hours looking at the problem, Mike Pilato
finally suggested that the whole "put BDB 4.2 into ld.so.conf" strategy
was basically a hack, and that I was lucky it was working at all.

So Mike sent me the standard patch to apr-util's configure (the one from
CVS) to teach it how to *really* recognize db-4.2. I reconfigured
apache --with-berkeley-db=XXX --with-dbm=db42, rebuilt from scratch,
then rebuilt svn from scratch. Poof, all problems gone. No more
double-linkage to db40 and db42. I was able to build both the python
and perl bindings perfectly, just following the bindings INSTALL. And
they work fine.

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.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Feb 27 03:35:39 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.