Re: libdb v. libgdbm (which are we migrating towards)
On Sat, Nov 07, 1998 at 10:13:06AM -0500, Shaleh wrote:
> The package notes for libgdbm states that it is no longer under
> development and programs should now use libdb.
Indeed.
> If this is the case, why are so many packages dependant on libgdbm?
Possibly because there is not much activity to move away from it. This is
probably something we should work on in the development cycle for potato.
Perhaps you can construct a list of packages which currently depend on
libgdbm(-dev) (and for what reason)?
> Just wondering, a package I maintain uses perl now for scripting, so I
> need libgdbm-dev installed.
Perl can be rebuilt to use a dynamically loadable module for gdbm; when this
is done, I suspect libgdbm-dev won't be needed much for perl packages
anymore.
Ray
--
Obsig: developing a new sig
Reply to: