Summary: | [PATCH] Build fix for alternate DB3/4 installations | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Applications] kdevelop | Reporter: | Melvyn Sopacua <melvyn> |
Component: | general | Assignee: | KDevelop Developers <kdevelop-devel> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | NOR | ||
Version: | 3.0.0a7 | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Platform: | Compiled Sources | ||
OS: | FreeBSD | ||
Latest Commit: | Version Fixed In: | ||
Sentry Crash Report: | |||
Attachments: | Berkeley DB compatibility |
Description
Melvyn Sopacua
2003-10-05 22:08:00 UTC
Created attachment 2693 [details]
Berkeley DB compatibility
Patch looks ok, and I believe there's even one more version of db available now as a port. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to test or experiment. Melvyn, you may want to send a message to kde@freebsd, to see if there's someone there with a kdevelop that can be experimented with. The patch looks good, but why did you put the check into configure.in.in instead of kdevelop.m4.in with the rest of the checks? I'd rather have the ugly parts in kdevelop.m4.in so that configure.in.in is readable. Harry I'm sure it doesn't make any difference as long as the same result is achieved. So if you want to do it that way, I don't think the reporter would have any objections. Subject: Re: [PATCH] Build fix for alternate DB3/4 installations
On Sunday 04 January 2004 07:22, you wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From will@csociety.org 2004-01-04 07:21
> ------- I'm sure it doesn't make any difference as long as the same result
> is achieved. So if you want to do it that way, I don't think the reporter
> would have any objections.
IIRC I tried first in kdevelop.m4 but that didn't work. I haven't chased the
cause, but it had something to do with the availablity of certain macro's.
If you can get it working, of course I have no objections.
This is fixed in HEAD |