Re: RFS: dnshistory (updated package)
- To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
- Cc: Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>
- Subject: Re: RFS: dnshistory (updated package)
- From: Matthias Julius <mdeb@julius-net.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:57:24 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87my9xk5cb.fsf@julius-net.net>
- Mail-followup-to: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org, Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org>
- In-reply-to: <20090430183139.GB11687@scru.org> (Clint Adams's message of "Thu\, 30 Apr 2009 18\:31\:39 +0000")
- References: <87vdp4wbja.fsf@julius-net.net> <87mya22fkp.fsf@julius-net.net> <e13a36b30904280345h7a4a9244h158b597a72693a59@mail.gmail.com> <87prex9bpw.fsf@julius-net.net> <e13a36b30904280841s1951c943v30a5572d1bf42eb4@mail.gmail.com> <87r5zc67zd.fsf@julius-net.net> <87ab5y5lb8.fsf@julius-net.net> <e13a36b30904300815m27dcf93dw2bd12e031c5b059d@mail.gmail.com> <20090430183139.GB11687@scru.org>
Clint Adams <schizo@debian.org> writes:
> Typically the fear which motivates this type of question is unfounded.
> Looking at the dnshistory source code, it appears that the use of BDB
> is trivial. Generally when the feature set you require could just
> as easily have been satisfied by GDBM, there are rarely compatibility
> worries. dnshistory is using simple B-trees, which haven't changed
> incompatibly in over 5 years.
>
> If, in a future BDB version, the database file created by dnshistory
> is using too old a format, the attempt to open it would return
> DB_OLD_VERSION, and you could add code to dnshistory to DB->upgrade()
> the file, seamlessly resolving the issue.
>
> It would be a different story if dnshistory were using transactions
> or other subsystems.
>
> I believe this is a clear case of build-depending on libdb-dev being
> the proper solution.
Thank you for your explanation. I will keep it as it is then.
And since the database format did not change from 4.6 to 4.7 there
should be nothing for the user to worry about.
I will take care of the other issues and upload a new package to
mentors soon.
Matthias
Reply to: