John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> writes: > On Tuesday, March 22, 2011 4:20:06 pm Alex Dupre wrote: >> Even if it could be simpler (is it?), I think unixODBC is a more common >> choice these days, so changing the KDE ports could be better. >> >> A few stats: >> - ports supporting both unixODBC and iODBC: 17 >> - ports supporting only unixODBC: 29 >> - ports supporting only iODBC: 8 >> >> I don't have personal experience, but the two ports should be completely >> interchangeable, so we could add support for USE_ODBC in >> bsd.databases.mk and allow the user to choose the odbc implementation >> (with one [unixODBC?] as default to create consistent packages). > > I'll defer judgement as to which approach is best. I'll just be happy so > long as it is fixed in some fashion. A USE_ODBC= knob sounds sensible to me.
On the KDE side, it looks like databases/virtuoso and textproc/soprano depending on libiodbc. In both cases, this seems to be an upstream issue (ie. virtuoso only accepts --with-iodbc, and soprano looks only for iodbc because it uses it to enable virtuoso support). _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
