Max Bowsher wrote:
> David Summers wrote:
>> Max Bowsher wrote:
>>> David Summers wrote:
>>>> I'll be glad to fix any problems resulting from a bad build, but so far
>>>> I'm not seeing the problem.
>>>> I just checked version 1.1.1 on the machine it was built on
>>>> (dsummers.digital-realms.com) which is a RedHat 9.0 machine. It
>>>> only has
>>>> db4-4.0.14-20 installed. No BDB 4.2.52 in sight. So I'm not seeing
>>>> you are seeing it linked to multiple versions of BDB.
>>>> Can you give me a transcript of the command you are using to see this?
>>> [mob22@unicorn tmp]$ rpm2cpio subversion-1.1.1-1.rh90.i386.rpm | cpio
>>> 9718 blocks
>>> [mob22@unicorn tmp]$ ldd usr/bin/svn | fgrep db
>>> libgdbm.so.2 => /usr/lib/libgdbm.so.2 (0x002c3000)
>>> libdb-4.0.so => not found
>>> libdb-4.2.so => /usr/lib/tls/i686/libdb-4.2.so (0x0077d000)
>>> [mob22@unicorn tmp]$
>>> (This is a FC3 box)
>> Oh! Well, that's probably why you ran into problems!!??
>> The RedHat 9.0 RPMs are not designed to work with FC1, FC2, or FC3.
> No, I'm not trying to *use* them on FC3 - I'm just using a FC3 box to
> run "ldd" on them to try and explain why those RPMs aren't working on
> other peoples' RH9 boxes.
> I mentioned FC3 by way of explaining the "/usr/lib/tls/i686/".
Oh, sorry, I mis-understood.
OK. Hmmm, well, when I ran ldd it only showed the 4.0.14 version, so
again, unless someone can show me differently or what I've done wrong,
it appears OK to me.
Hmmm, I wonder if the original user has the newer db-4.2.52 installed on
his RedHat 9.0 machine as well as the original 4.0.14 version?
Someone mentioned a while back that there might be a compile option to
strengthen the binding so it wouldn't try to dynamically link with a
different version.....Hmmm....I may do some research on that if I have
some time this weekend.
- David Summers
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Sat Nov 27 01:22:11 2004