Using just db44 for all instead of mixed usage of db41/db42/db44 (was: Re: mutt vs db44 // Bug in /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.database.mk ?)

[Raphael Eiselstein]

Hi all,

Just to get an answer to this thread:

On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 02:13:30PM +0100, Raphael Eiselstein wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 01:51:09PM +0100, Herbert J. Skuhra wrote:
> > # <UNIQUENAME>_WITH_BDB_VER
> > in /etc/make.conf?
> havn't tried yet. But for me it makes more sens to pin all ports to the
> *same* version of BDB. 

I set WITH_BDB_HIGHEST=x in my /etc/make.conf of the build-jail. 
*All* packages depending on db4x will be linked to db44 now, as this is
the highest version.

I haven't test all binaries "in depth" but different build runds were fine 
for the last couple of days and I didn't see any problems yet (libchk ...)

> Is there any problem linking db44 to *any* port? 

I didn't see some, but ... ?

> Why do we have so much versions of bdb in our ports? 

I guess there must be technical reasons for this. Can anyone explain?
Where are the differneces between db41, db42 and db44? Why not just
shipping db44 or higher?

Regards
Raphael
-- 
Raphael Eiselstein <rabe at uugrn.org>               http://rabe.uugrn.org/
xmpp:freibyter at gmx.de  | https://www.xing.com/profile/Raphael_Eiselstein   
GnuPG:                E7B2 1D66 3AF2 EDC7 9828  6D7A 9CDA 3E7B 10CA 9F2D
.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|..
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20130216/99d983df/attachment.sig>