Re: Bug#244867: [htdig-dev] Status of htdig for Sarge..

[Robert R. <ri...@li...>]

Gilles Detillieux wrote:

>According to Robert Ribnitz:
>  
>
>>Hello Gabriele,
>>
>>Htdig does not depend on an external  libdb3 /libdb2 (since it uses its 
>>own version of it, already discussed). I was thinking about 
>>externalising libhtdig (and libhtdigphp). Forcibly, those libs would be 
>>different for the two htdig versions, and thus conflicting. To arrange 
>>the different db directories, or config file locations would be a minor 
>>issue.
>>    
>>
>
>libhtdig is part of ht://Dig 3.2, but not 3.1.6, so there shouldn't be
>an issue there.  The 3.1.6 code builds static libraries of libht.a,
>libcommon.a, libfuzzy.a and libdb.a, and links its binaries against
>these, but there shouldn't be any need to externalize any of them,
>so there shouldn't be any library conflicts.
>
>If you want to go to the effort, you could probably build 3.1.6 with an
>externalized libdb, rather than the bundled one.  However, 3.2 needs its
>own (patched) libdb, as you're already aware and have already addressed.
>So, that's not a new issue to deal with and wouldn't prevent packaging
>both 3.1.6 and 3.2.0b6 without conflicts.
>
>  
>
>>Both versions (minor issue) also depend on libnewt0, and conflict with 
>>libmifluz0 (ideally, both libmifluz0 and htdig externalise the 
>>conflicting set of libs and both depend on it. But since Mifluz is very 
>>similar to Ht://Dig, I don't expect people to install both on the same 
>>system.
>>
>>I'll do my best to get both packages into Sarge. At the moment, they 
>>conflict. If we can change the issue later on, all for the better...
>>
>>Robert
>>    
>>
>
>Again, only 3.2 uses mifluz.  3.1.6 doesn't, so there shouldn't be any
>conflict there either.  The only conflict might be that 3.1.6, 3.2, and
>the separate mifluz package all rely on slightly different versions of
>libdb.  What's libnewt0?  I didn't know either version depended on that.
>Is that a Debian addition to ht://Dig?
>  
>
After a first check it looksl ike I dont need that dependency (which I 
simply took as granted form the person packaging ht://Dig before me.
So the only (possible) point of conflict remaining is the name of the 
binariies, which is easy to change.  Will looki into it more deeply this 
week-end.

Robert