READ PLEASE if your port uses BerkeleyDB (db3, db4, db41)

Matthias Andree matthias.andree at
Tue Oct 14 07:01:48 PDT 2003

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Sergey A. Osokin wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 01:21:34PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> > as some of you know, I am currently maintaining the db4, db41,
> > db41-nocrypto and bogofilter ports, among others.
> > 
> > Just symlinking things into /usr/local/BerkeleyDB.X.Y might not work
> > since the library SONAME does not match then -- or can we have a file
> > /usr/local/BerkeleyDB.4.1/lib/ when its SONAME is in fact
> >
> > 
> > Does anyone see a good way out? Suggestions, thoughts are solicited.
> > 
> > 
> > For reference, here are the libdb "consumers" and "providers":
> Also postfix/postfix-current and oops may use db3/db4/db41 ports.

Indeed, my list does not comprise packages which optionally use db - I
looked at INDEX that lists the mandatory dependencies for the default
port configuration, not the optional dependencies.

> I have a idea about split everyone db* port into 3 ports:
> db-devel, db-doc and db-tool, because more (all?) dependences
> ports do not use documentation and application from db port.

I'm not a fan of "install library, but not the documentation", I prefer
the "all of it or nothing" approach. We have -DNOPORTDOCS for the
systems where space is tight and documentation is dispensable.

Other than that, we have some 9,000 ports, I don't find it appealing to
add even more without adding functionality.

As to the applications from the db-ports: these may be needed to tune
application's settings, recover a data base after a crash or dump it so
it can be carried to another system. In particular, these applications
(db_dump, db_verify and all that) are user applications, not developer
stuff, so splitting these programs out is not the right thing to do.

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list