immesys
commented
10 years ago Actually, it would probably be better to bump libdb to 5.1, rather than 5.3 because then we can target precise as well, which is an LTS and often still used on servers.
Closed immesys closed 10 years ago
immesys
commented
10 years ago Actually, it would probably be better to bump libdb to 5.1, rather than 5.3 because then we can target precise as well, which is an LTS and often still used on servers.
stevedh
commented
10 years ago Very cool.
re: check, it's just an annoying dependency that is pretty low value since there are only a tests on the hashtable library; you only need it so make test will work.
re: master vs. microseconds, the issue here I think is that everyone who's currently installed smap (including us, on verde/ar1.openbms.org) has the version out of master and so if we change the debian packages to use the microseconds branch and they get updated, it will look like all their data is gone. Also since the rpc format changed it could break things if you only upgrade one end. We'll have to figure out what if anything to do about this but this changeset alone shouldn't cause any problems, I would think.
Hey Steve
As I'll talk about in the next SDB meeting, I now have a buildserver which automatically pulls and builds the whole sMAP stack (and pushes to https://launchpad.net/~mandersen/+archive/smap) whenever something is committed to svn or git.
These are the changes I needed to make to build the readingdb components. At the moment I am only building this branch, I don't know if the master branch is still used?
In addition, the buildserver also makes sure that the pkg_check lines in the configure.ac files are uncommented, but I haven't committed that because I don't know your reasoning for leaving one them commented.
Michael