Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 21367 invoked from network); 27 Jan 2005 12:34:48 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Jan 2005 12:34:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 76874 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jan 2005 12:34:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 76777 invoked by uid 500); 27 Jan 2005 12:34:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 76748 invoked by uid 99); 27 Jan 2005 12:34:45 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.4 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_POST X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from ppsw-3.csi.cam.ac.uk (HELO ppsw-3.csi.cam.ac.uk) (131.111.8.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 04:34:44 -0800 Received: from mob22.robinson.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.236.230]:4127 helo=zephyr) by ppsw-3.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.133]:25) with smtp id 1Cu8r9-00032F-BN (Exim 4.44) for dev@apr.apache.org (return-path ); Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:34:39 +0000 Message-ID: <082101c5046c$916b6200$e6ec6f83@robinson.cam.ac.uk> From: "Max Bowsher" To: Subject: Ping: [PATCH] build/dbm.m4 synchronization from 1.x -> 0.9.x Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:34:30 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Ping? Any responses to the below? Thanks, Max. ---------------------------------------------- build/dbm.m4 differs between 0.9.x and trunk in a few small ways (diff below). All are safe changes, just introducing additional places and names to look for a valid BDB install. Therefore, I would like to request that 0.9.x's build/dbm.m4 be made the same as trunk's, either by applying the patch below, or simply copying the trunk file, either of which will produce the same result. Thanks, Max. =========================================================================== --- apr-util-0.9.x/build/dbm.m4 2005-01-17 19:05:47.839556800 +0000 +++ apr-util-trunk/build/dbm.m4 2005-01-02 10:44:20.834233600 +0000 @@ -378,12 +378,12 @@ AC_DEFUN(APU_CHECK_DB41, [ places=$1 if test -z "$places"; then - places="std /usr/local/BerkeleyDB.4.1 /boot/home/config" + places="std /usr/local /usr/local/BerkeleyDB.4.1 /boot/home/config" fi APU_CHECK_BERKELEY_DB("4", "1", "-1", "$places", "db41/db.h db4/db.h db.h", - "db-4.1 db4 db" + "db-4.1 db41 db4 db" ) if test "$apu_have_db" = "1"; then apu_db_version=4 @@ -399,12 +399,12 @@ AC_DEFUN(APU_CHECK_DB42, [ places=$1 if test -z "$places"; then - places="std /usr/local/BerkeleyDB.4.2 /boot/home/config" + places="std /usr/local /usr/local/BerkeleyDB.4.2 /boot/home/config" fi APU_CHECK_BERKELEY_DB("4", "2", "-1", "$places", "db42/db.h db4/db.h db.h", - "db-4.2 db4 db" + "db-4.2 db42 db4 db" ) if test "$apu_have_db" = "1"; then apu_db_version=4 ===========================================================================