Richard Megginson <rmeggins at redhat.com> kirjoitti: > But there are a lot of people for whom this is a problem. For example, we ship 3 versions of NSPR, NSS, LDAP C SDK, ICU, etc. that are private to RHDS. In > addition, we ship our own versions of bdb, cyrus sasl, netsnmp, and other software that are in most cases identical to what is already included or available for > the OS. To remedy this situation, we are going to switch FDS/RHDS to build and run against those OS libraries, and to not include them in the DS package. > So we are already committed to not including all of the dependencies in an isolated manner. This change will affect the linux and solaris ports. I'm not sure > how it will affect the HP-UX port. HP already takes our software and repackages it in the HP-UX depot format. Argh. This is also a strength of the FDS software, not a problem or weakness. The package always works because it always includes exactly what it needs. Using OS libraries can cause all sorts of unpredictable problems. IMO, removing the included dependencies is also a bad idea. My list of reasons on the plus side for FDS/RHDS vs OL are being reduced, strangely. One would have thought that the package could only get better, not worse. Consider Symas, how they compile and deliver CDS, which is intended to be a supportable product for commercial customers. They put the entire chain of dependencies and software into /opt/symas, so CDS doesn't break everytime somebody installs a new buggy OS level bdb or OL library on the machine. There's a good reason for that; it is then a supportable product. Trusting the proper operation of your critically important software to the random quality and version numbers of system libraries is not wise. BTW, when is the autoconf support coming? The patch was submitted quite a while ago, IIRC... BR, -- mike
