Re: Reasons for Statically linking to Bekely DB?

[Edward Rudd <eddie@omegaware.com>]

I think you misunderstood my e-mail, my current compile of OpenLDAP on
WBEL (rhel3 based) is dynamically linked to Berkeley DB 4.2.52, and the
rest of the programs on my system are Berkeley DB 4.1.25 (ie sasl), Is
there any reason why I should have it statically linked?

On Sun, 2004-04-04 at 23:35, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> At 08:16 PM 4/4/2004, Edward Rudd wrote:
> >I am compiling my own RPMS for my server, and have noted that several of
> >the existing RPMS of Openldap, mostly 2.0.x series, are compiled in such
> >a way that the Berkeley DB is statically linked to the server binary as
> >opposed to dynamically linked to the system DB library. Is there any
> >reason to do this? And will I run into problems if my system ships with
> >DB 4.1.25, and I compile OpenLDAP with DB version 4.2.52?
> 
> OpenLDAP, by default, links its executables using
>         libtool --mode=link -static
> 
> which means "do not link it [the executable] against any
> uninstalled shared libtool libraries" (libtool manual).
> Unforunately, with -static, libtool actually won't link
> any shared libtool library.
> 
> So, you have three choices.  Remove libdb.la from your lib
> directory.  Or don't use -static (edit config.status,
> remove -static from LTSTATIC, execute config.status,
> make depend, make, ...).  Hack libtool so it behaves as
> documented. 
> 
-- 
Edward Rudd <eddie@omegaware.com>
Website http://outoforder.cc/