[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Compiling perl 5.004_04 for sparc/slink



On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Christian Meder wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 26, 1999 at 11:21:25PM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> > Hi there,
> > 
> > I'm trying to compile a copy of 5.004_04 for sparc/slink.  The catalyst
> > for this is that I discovered that our current 5.004 doesn't have
> > GDBM_file support compiled in.
> > 
> > I succeeded eventually in compiling it (the hitch was an already open bug,
> > that 5.004 doesn't compile with libc2.1-pre versions), but I've hit
> > another snag:
> > 
> > I also need the DB_File extension to work. Unfortunately, Perl won't build
> > the DB_File extension against Berkeley DB version 2, only Berkeley DB
> > version 1 - and AFAICS, we don't have a libc6 dev-package of Berkeley DB
> > version 1.
> > 
> > This is a slight mystery, since I don't see how the version currently *in*
> > slink got compiled, since that does have db support..
> > 
> > Any thoughts?
> 
> Yes. I compiled the current perl package. You've got to patch the configure
> script to look for db_185.h instead of db.h. I thought I filed a bug report
> and it was closed because it's fixed in the newer upstream release (potato).
> I can't check my mails right now.

I don't see a bug report.  Maybe it was closed ages ago.  IMHO, it
shouldn't have been closed - since it is making it hard for me to compile
the slink version properly, so we can freeze.

Jules

/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
|  Jelibean aka  | jules@jellybean.co.uk         |  6 Evelyn Rd	       |
|  Jules aka     | jules@debian.org              |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk        |  TW9 2TF *UK*       |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
|  War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left.             |
|  When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy.          |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/


Reply to: