[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Openlap and BDB updates: update question
søn, 08.02.2004 kl. 11.52 skrev Peter Marschall:
> > It definitely isn't "left over" after the BDB install. It's there on
> > purpose and even sought after by Openldap, according to Kurt:
> It may now be there on purpose but maybe it wasn't with 4.1 ?
> (Please note the question mark)
This is a new system for me - RH RHEL Nov. 5 last year. It turns out I'd
compiled Openldap 2.1 with static libs too, without realizing - since I
hadn't been on RH 7.2 before that. RH has put 4.1 .so libs in /lib and
the .la libs in /usr/lib. Openldap found the 4.1 .la libs.
If it hadn't been for this thread, I'd never have realized.
> My interpretation of Kurt's post with te .la files was "If they are there they
> are used in the OpenLDAP build process".
That's what he wrote :)
> > However, as I posted, a single './configure' parameter is enough to make
> > the compile choose DSOs instead.
> I know, my OpenLDAP is compiled this way.
> (--enable-dynamic has been available for a long time)
Definitely. I'd never taken enough notice of the configure options. It'd
always worked out right before.
> As a side note:
> I am feeling a bit offended by your post which I consider quite harsh.
> I only tried to give a possible explanation why BDB might be linked statically
> into slapd. I never claimed that it is the only possible cause.
Please don't be offended; there was no offense intended. I sometimes
forget that not everyone has English as a native or near-native
language. I can cope pretty well with all that's thrown at me in
(correct) English, Dutch or any Germanic Scandinavian - but I'm be
completely at sea on German-language lists, don't know what to make of
them ;) Some of your countrymen are pretty harsh on other lists, but one
gets used to them ...
I wish that mailing-list people would stop CC'ing me.
Chances (95%) are that if they do, the CC will never
make it, anyway.
mail: billy - at - billy.demon.nl