Problem with DB44 on Intel MacBook Pro

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Jun 24, 2007, at 10:25, Steven Rogers wrote:

> On Jun 24, 2007, at 5:40 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> Well.... if BerkeleyDB (db44) is now installed, then you should be  
>> able to install Subversion. If not, show us the last few lines of  
>> the error. (You snipped too much above for us to know what went  
>> wrong last time.)
>
> Sorry - I lost that context already. I'm going to be setting up  
> another system soon - if it happens again, I'll capture all of it.
>
>> It's also possible to skip BerkeleyDB entirely by building first  
>> apr-util and then subversion with the +no_bdb variant. I do this,  
>> and recommend it, unless you already know that you really need  
>> BerkeleyDB, but I suspect you don't.
>
> Yes, I probably don't need it, but the port dependencies think I  
> do. The blog entry I mentioned ( http://blog.duncandavidson.com/ 
> 2006/04/sandboxing_rail.html ) is pretty widely referenced, so I  
> expect a lot of people have their first experience with macPorts  
> trying to set up a Ruby on Rails environment by following these  
> instructions. So when it blows up on db44, they don't know what to do.

Again, I'm not sure why your db44 blew up; if it blows up again for  
you, please post the output so we can take a look at it.

Yes, the ports apr-util and subversion depend on db44 by default, but  
that's why I explained how to avoid that dependency:

sudo port install apr-util +no_bdb
sudo port install subversion +no_bdb +tools

I'm not sure why they depend on BerkeleyDB by default. Seems wiser to  
me at this point if not depending on it would be a better default.  
I'll speak with the maintainer.

>> Also, you do not need to specify "+darwin_8"; that's automatically  
>> selected for you when you're running Mac OS X 10.4.x.
>
> OK - maybe it was the +universal that did the trick? I'm not sure  
> why a "port clean" and then "port install db44 +universal" would  
> fix it, but it did.
>
> I posted that on the site, so perhaps that will get people past  
> this particular hangup.

The +universal variant was only recently added to MacPorts, and is  
available to all ports, but does not work with all ports. +universal  
has only been tested with a very few ports, and only by a few people.  
Therefore, adding +universal is currently unlikely to solve any  
problems building ports; rather, it's likely to cause problems.  
There's no need to use +universal unless you really do plan to use  
your ports tree on both Intel and PowerPC Macs.